*Official* 2nd Test at Lord's

[FaaipDeOiad]

Can't really think of two left-arm fast bowlers who are more different than Johnson and Starc honestly. That's like saying Brett Lee and Steve Harmison were the same because they were both right arm quicks. I guess the intended point is that they can both go for runs?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Can't really think of two left-arm fast bowlers who are more different than Johnson and Starc honestly. That's like saying Brett Lee and Steve Harmison were the same because they were both right arm quicks. I guess the intended point is that they can both go for runs?

Nothing to do with them being left-armers; more that they are such strike bowlers.

Bit like Tait and Lee never working together in Test match cricket, in the few times it was tried.

 

[Stapel]

So, the only doubt on either team is Mitchel Starc, right?

Who do we reckon are favourites now? Before the 1st Test, bookies had England 1:4 and Aus 4:5 or so. I figured that was too much credit to Australia, though they were favourites. They're nearly even now, but Aus are still favourites with bookies. Is that so?

 

[Stapel]

Nothing to do with them being left-armers; more that they are such strike bowlers.

Bit like Tait and Lee never working together in Test match cricket, in the few times it was tried.

Tait only played two Tests, right? And if those weren't in the great series of 2005, I figure I wouldn't have heared of him at all. I get your point, just think it's not the best example.

Having said that, I don't think Mitch&Mitch are too similar, apart from being wicket takers that might go for a few if things get unlucky or wrong. The right thing to do to play them both.

 

[Howe_zat]

So, the only doubt on either team is Mitchel Starc, right?

Who do we reckon are favourites now? Before the 1st Test, bookies had England 1:4 and Aus 4:5 or so. I figured that was too much credit to Australia, though they were favourites. They're nearly even now, but Aus are still favourites with bookies. Is that so?

Can't be right, unless this is an odds format that hints at yet more continental craziness

Right now the best I can get on England is about 9/5 with Australia slight favourites at 7/5. It's close enough for England to be slight favourites for the series because of leading 1-0.

I think, trying my very hardest to wear the rational hat, it's worth remembering that almost everything that could have gone wrong for Australia in this match did, and that on recent results their batting looks a lot stronger than England's, and if they adjust their bowling to something closer that seen in the WI they will be difficult to deal with.

This will be a close series even if neither side are consistent enough to have close matches.

 

[Howe_zat]

That being said, the idea that you can solve the problems of a team plagued by far too many Mitchells by adding a third is completely laughable. 5-0, barring rain

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Can't be right, unless this is an odds format that hints at yet more continental craziness

Can I just say decimal odds just make sense

(Admittedly Stapel didn't post decimal, probably messed up his conversions)

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nothing to do with them being left-armers; more that they are such strike bowlers.

Bit like Tait and Lee never working together in Test match cricket, in the few times it was tried.

not really

If 2 bowlers both bowl well it will work, if they don't then it won't. How similar they are in style is almost irrelevant.

Granted it could be more pronounced when 2 fast & loose bowlers both bowl badly as it can look really, really bad as far as runs conceded goes.

Shaun Tait never worked in test cricket because he bowled ****

 

[Uppercut]

Can't be right, unless this is an odds format that hints at yet more continental craziness

Right now the best I can get on England is about 9/5 with Australia slight favourites at 7/5. It's close enough for England to be slight favourites for the series because of leading 1-0.

I think, trying my very hardest to wear the rational hat, it's worth remembering that almost everything that could have gone wrong for Australia in this match did, and that on recent results their batting looks a lot stronger than England's, and if they adjust their bowling to something closer that seen in the WI they will be difficult to deal with.

This will be a close series even if neither side are consistent enough to have close matches.

I think Australia were stronger with the bat even at Cardiff, but England's bowling was stronger by a greater margin. Having the better attack usually wins you the series, but England's backup is so poor this time that one injury could put Australia's ahead. That being so I'd make England favourites for this match since everyone is fit, and favourites for the series since they're 1 up, but Australia still have a good shot at it if they come away from Lord's unscathed.

 

[Prince EWS]

If 2 bowlers both bowl well it will work, if they don't then it won't. How similar they are in style is almost irrelevant.

This is a view I more or less held five years ago but I really, really disagree with this now. There are so many things that contribute to the effectiveness of a bowling attack beyond the individual quality of each of the bowlers.

 

[Howe_zat]

Can I just say decimal odds just make sense

(Admittedly Stapel didn't post decimal, probably messed up his conversions)

I use decimal - I thought Stapel may have posted something I'd never seen before

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

This is a view I more or less held five years ago but I really, really disagree with this now. There are so many things that contribute to the effectiveness of a bowling attack beyond the individual quality of each of the bowlers.

Yeah I agree with this, it's the reason it would have been really dumb for Australia to pick Siddle over Lyon in the Cardiff test. I think most people agree with it too, in the sense that if you could pick between an attack with four Glenn McGraths in it or one McGrath, a Warne and two other seamers who might be slightly worse than McGrath but have different attributes (Harris and Starc, let's say) most people would pick the second attack. I think two potentially expensive bowlers in a team is fine though, you just want some different options among your other bowlers.

 

[Swingpanzee]

Yeah I agree with this, it's the reason it would have been really dumb for Australia to pick Siddle over Lyon in the Cardiff test. I think most people agree with it too, in the sense that if you could pick between an attack with four Glenn McGraths in it or one McGrath, a Warne and two other seamers who might be slightly worse than McGrath but have different attributes (Harris and Starc, let's say) most people would pick the second attack. I think two potentially expensive bowlers in a team is fine though, you just want some different options among your other bowlers.

One can also say this is why England's attack is quite good atm - Anderson, Broad, Wood, Stokes and Ali all contribute in their own way to the attack

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is a view I more or less held five years ago but I really, really disagree with this now. There are so many things that contribute to the effectiveness of a bowling attack beyond the individual quality of each of the bowlers.

Yes it can make a very small difference, on occasions. But it's no where near as influential as actual performances.

 

[Johnners]

Yeah I agree with this, it's the reason it would have been really dumb for Australia to pick Siddle over Lyon in the Cardiff test. I think most people agree with it too, in the sense that if you could pick between an attack with four Glenn McGraths in it or one McGrath, a Warne and two other seamers who might be slightly worse than McGrath but have different attributes (Harris and Starc, let's say) most people would pick the second attack. I think two potentially expensive bowlers in a team is fine though, you just want some different options among your other bowlers.

silentstriker disagrees

 

[Uppercut]

One can also say this is why England's attack is quite good atm - Anderson, Broad, Wood, Stokes and Ali all contribute in their own way to the attack

Do they though? They're all right-arm, similar pace. All try to swing it, with varying degrees of success. Wood hits the deck a little bit harder, but he's nothing like a Harmison type, or even a Morkel. In fact I'm struggling to think of a more homogeneous pace attack in recent times. Maybe when Bresnan was the third bowler, but that England attack was even more successful.

 

[Compton]

I think England's attack now vs England's attack in the West Indies with Chris Jordan, or prior to that with someone like Woakes, proves the point.

The improvement isn't simply that Wood is a better bowler than Jordan or Woakes (he is, for the record) but that Wood's legitimate pace and style of bowling is distinctly different from Anderson and Broad. Before Wood's inclusion England's problem wasn't simply that their attack wasn't good enough, but more that it wasn't diverse enough.

It gets easier for the batsmen to play when you can get into a rhythm against bowlers with the same pace/line/length/swing.

 

[social]

not really

If 2 bowlers both bowl well it will work, if they don't then it won't. How similar they are in style is almost irrelevant.

Granted it could be more pronounced when 2 fast & loose bowlers both bowl badly as it can look really, really bad as far as runs conceded goes.

Shaun Tait never worked in test cricket because he bowled ****

Tait was ever picked at the right time and didn't have the stamina for the longer form on a consistent basis

Easily the most consistently quick bowler that I have ever seen and I go back a looooong way including Thommo, etc (Tait bowls 150 + virtually every time)

What's more, he was, on his day, definitely the fastest bowler that the world has ever seen (see youtube)

Regularly 160 ++++

Shame that he reserved some of his slower spells for test cricket due to other factors

 

[Howe_zat]

Don't think Wood is any more distinct than Jordan. He's just better.

 

[social]

Don't think Wood is any more distinct than Jordan. He's just better.

Jordan is an athlete that bowls quickly despite a dodgy technique

Wood is a bowler who bowls quickly

Big difference