*Official* Second Test at Lord's

[Expressway76]

We lost by 14 runs in the first test and if Siddle comes in and takes 9/12

That's all well and good but there aren't 12 wickets to take

 

[social]

Amidst the batting horror, not much has been said of Haddin's stand-and-watch-the-ball-fly-past wicket keeping. Seriously, twice yesterday. Unacceptable. And what's so irritating, is despite such shoddy performances, that you know aren't going to improve because the guy is average and 35 or whatever, there's no one to replace him - not even close - so he's made vice captain instead. The problem is what was once our strength. Shield cricket. So depressing.

Has really slipped under the radar.

The miss off Root should've been regulation and the worst thing that I can say of him is that he is no great improvement on Wade

 

[Top_Cat]

On Watson, it's not about finding a scapegoat, it's about how Watson's failures as a senior player are affecting the rest of the line-up. No innings exists in a bubble and, as a senior player, the standards of performance are higher. Watson should be scoring more and more regularly than Khawaja, Hughes, et al. Nothing fires the team up more than the annointed gun doing well and the opposite is very much true. He's had a lot of allowances made and basically been given exactly what he wants ahead of the needs of others so, at some point, there has to be a pay-off for the team otherwise why are they giving it to him instead of someone else?

This is aside from whether his behaviour in general is having an effect on the other bats. If he is (I dunno, not there, etc.), really does need a stern looking at what exactly he does bring to the team.

 

[Tangles]

I'd like to punt Twatto also but he is scoring some runs. Right now our batting would be worse without him as much as it pains me to say that.

 

[Spikey]

Nick Hoult ‏@NHoultCricket 2m
asked Lehmann last night why he listens to the TV comm. "I don't have all the ideas. There are some legends of the game up there."

this does not fill me with confidence

 

[Ruckus]

If Australia were a great batting lineup I'd agree, but I'd take 30-40 from Watson each time over the performances offered by the rest of the order. Only Agar has scored more runs than Watson for Australia this series and he did it all in one innings. He's also bowled okay, at least when you consider it an addition to his batting. Watson definitely has some big flaws as a test cricketer but targeting him for dropping at this point is silly. He at least looks able to face the England bowlers and has gotten a start each time.

Overall I think cricket fans value "going on with it" too much. Yeah, 30 isn't a good score and converting starts is important, but it is better than 2, not somehow magically worse because you "threw it away" or whatever. Our opening partnership has been the biggest stand of the innings in both the last two innings of the series so we can look elsewhere for scapegoats.

I'd agree with this if he was making 50's, but not 30-40. That's not really good enough, especially seeing as though he doesn't even seem to have the consistency he used to a couple of years back. He'd regularly make 50's in both innings, but these days he seems to make one 50 and then go early in the next, or vice versa. I agree, though, that there are more pressing causes for concern - namely everyone else who has failed to score any runs whatsoever. The dire thing though is that everyone is performing poorly, and there's no real standout in term of who to drop...plus this is basically the best we've got anyway.

 

[Riggins]

That's all well and good but there aren't 12 wickets to take

lucky he only needs 6.

 

[Uppercut]

On Watson, it's not about finding a scapegoat, it's about how Watson's failures as a senior player are affecting the rest of the line-up. No innings exists in a bubble and, as a senior player, the standards of performance are higher. Watson should be scoring more and more regularly than Khawaja, Hughes, et al. Nothing fires the team up more than the annointed gun doing well and the opposite is very much true.

This is the key point against him but on the other hand, there's a bit of a hindsight bias in criticising him. Before Australia's innings began yesterday all of the talk was that the most important thing was to see off the new ball and from then on batting would be easy. Watto's wasn't a good innings but he did see off Anderson's opening spell and set the middle order up to bat all day. If we set aside the wasted review then his innings is surely the least deserving of criticism.

 

[Ruckus]

On Watson, it's not about finding a scapegoat, it's about how Watson's failures as a senior player are affecting the rest of the line-up. No innings exists in a bubble and, as a senior player, the standards of performance are higher. Watson should be scoring more and more regularly than Khawaja, Hughes, et al. Nothing fires the team up more than the annointed gun doing well and the opposite is very much true. He's had a lot of allowances made and basically been given exactly what he wants ahead of the needs of others so, at some point, there has to be a pay-off for the team otherwise why are they giving it to him instead of someone else?

This is aside from whether his behaviour in general is having an effect on the other bats. If he is (I dunno, not there, etc.), really does need a stern looking at what exactly he does bring to the team.

Frankly if our batsmen are influenced so heavily by such a thing, then we have little hope ever of success. Being so negatively affected by other team members performances is basically the definition of being mentally weak.

 

[Ruckus]

This is the key point against him but on the other hand, there's a bit of a hindsight bias in criticising him. Before Australia's innings began yesterday all of the talk was that the most important thing was to see off the new ball and from then on batting would be easy. Watto's wasn't a good innings but he did see off Anderson's opening spell and set the middle order up to bat all day. If we set aside the wasted review then his innings is surely the least deserving of criticism.

yep that's right. For most intents and purposes, conditions in which a lower order collapse could occur were largely avoided. Unfortunately the rest of the batsmen didn't take advantage of that and were rank as ****.

 

[Manee]

I wonder if there is a way that a bowling coach could get footage quickly enough of where the bowler is landing and just pass the message on to the bowler that they are continuously landing very close or over the line. Having said that, I think its a big poor from the umpire to never call them and only look when the batsman is out.

I think I'm going to get schooled by someone who knows better however...

As far as I know, it is not legal for a coach to pass messages through a earphone to a bowler. Bob Woolmer used to time Allan Donald's run up and tell him if he was going too quickly to the crease or too slowly and when I read that, I remember reading that it is no longer legal.

 

[Top_Cat]

Frankly if our batsmen are influenced so heavily by such a thing, then we have little hope ever of success. Being so negatively affected by other team members performances is basically the definition of being mentally weak.

No, it's the definition of a team. Noone, even pro, is immune to it.

This is the key point against him but on the other hand, there's a bit of a hindsight bias in criticising him. Before Australia's innings began yesterday all of the talk was that the most important thing was to see off the new ball and from then on batting would be easy. Watto's wasn't a good innings but he did see off Anderson's opening spell and set the middle order up to bat all day. If we set aside the wasted review then his innings is surely the least deserving of criticism.

Yes and no. The key bit you mention is the thought that batting would get easier after seeing of the new-ball. True or not, you'd back the English bowlers to get one through him whether he's 20 or 80. The threat of a bigger score if you let him get away is what separates, say, Warner from Watson.

 

[Maximas]

Just read that Rogers advised Watto to review, still think Watto could've spoken up and said he was plumb, anyhow, a couple more wickets this morning and Aus could bowl England out relatively cheaply, that might give us some momentum to make a decent fist of things in the second dig and get some confidence back into the team, that's the best I'm hoping for.

 

[Manee]

Just read that Rogers advised Watto to review, still think Watto could've spoken up and said he was plumb, anyhow, a couple more wickets this morning and Aus could bowl England out relatively cheaply, that might give us some momentum to make a decent fist of things in the second dig and get some confidence back into the team, that's the best I'm hoping for.

Maybe players will have to start training in reviews and self-awareness. It is something that the old commentators will despise but might be necessary in the modern game. The correct review can be the difference between a win and a loss.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

That catching drill on Sky just now was good, good to see the team spirit in the England dressing room celebrating Nasser dropping one.

 

[social]

This is the key point against him but on the other hand, there's a bit of a hindsight bias in criticising him. Before Australia's innings began yesterday all of the talk was that the most important thing was to see off the new ball and from then on batting would be easy. Watto's wasn't a good innings but he did see off Anderson's opening spell and set the middle order up to bat all day. If we set aside the wasted review then his innings is surely the least deserving of criticism.

Mate we have seen this ad nauseam

If we polled Australians as to whether they expected Watto to get out either pre- or just post-lunch after a bright and breezy innings, I know what the answer would be

What's more, I reckon the opposition know it as well

Not exactly a confidence boosting thing to have one opener that is walking wicket at certain stages of the innings

 

[Spikey]

I'm not sure if Ruckus is the person to talk about mental weakness given he falls apart the moment starc or siddle starts sending down rubbish

 

[Furball]

If Australia were a great batting lineup I'd agree, but I'd take 30-40 from Watson each time over the performances offered by the rest of the order. Only Agar has scored more runs than Watson for Australia this series and he did it all in one innings. He's also bowled okay, at least when you consider it an addition to his batting. Watson definitely has some big flaws as a test cricketer but targeting him for dropping at this point is silly. He at least looks able to face the England bowlers and has gotten a start each time.

Overall I think cricket fans value "going on with it" too much. Yeah, 30 isn't a good score and converting starts is important, but it is better than 2, not somehow magically worse because you "threw it away" or whatever. Our opening partnership has been the biggest stand of the innings in both the last two innings of the series so we can look elsewhere for scapegoats.

Nah, rubbish. This is the same argument as 2 and a half years ago after a rubbish Ashes series. The fact that Watson hasn't learned a thing in 2 years should he concerning.

 

[Uppercut]

Yes and no. The key bit you mention is the thought that batting would get easier after seeing of the new-ball. True or not, you'd back the English bowlers to get one through him whether he's 20 or 80. The threat of a bigger score if you let him get away is what separates, say, Warner from Watson.

Well, some players are better at starting and some are better at scoring runs when set. As in 2009 Watto's consistency should really be worth a lot more given England's ability with the new ball but for whatever reason the rest of the team can't take advantage. Maybe you can blame Watto for that but I think the criticism of him is a bit too personal. I mean, it's not like he's getting to 40 and thinking "yep, that's my job done now", he just doesn't get well set.

Honestly I think it would be madness to drop him. It's always frustrating that he isn't doing more but 60-ish runs and a couple of big wickets a test is a better contribution than you can really expect from anyone else in the top six bar Clarke.

 

[Ruckus]

No, it's the definition of a team. Noone, even pro, is immune to it.

You could also argue the definition of a team is one where players put their hands up and cover for anothers failings. It works both ways, and if the batsmen are so reactive to what someone like Watson does, then that is a problem in and of itself. There are too many collective failures, and not enough individuals gritting it out in tough situations.