*Official* Fourth Test at Trent Bridge

[cnerd123]

ESPNcricinfo @ESPNcricinfo
Clarke on the shot that got him out: "I was thinking if he [Broad] pitches it up I'm going to hit it as far as I can"

i don't even

Disappointed Cricinfo didn't end that tweet with a #Intent

 

[OverratedSanity]

To be fair, I think for that brief moment in time Australia probably were the best team in the world. However that team has never really taken the field since. Harris is gone. Haddin, Clarke and Watson have gone into terminal decline. Johnson - while still being generally very good - has not looked the same since the final test of that summer. Pattinson has been perpetually injured. Siddle is a narcoleptic vegan *****.

It probably should've been accepted that given the make-up of their side, Australia's successes in 2013/14 weren't going to last into the long term.

Nah, I said it then that it was a product of them playing in conditions which suit them and they generally do well in. Don't get me wrong, they were awesome and they did technically get to no. 1 for a while there, but their failures in UAE and now in England are hardly that shocking. After that win in SA you had people saying SA had been dethroned and Australia would begin a new era of dominance. It was all so premature.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Exactly. Look, every team today has a below par away record. But the difference between Australia in helpful conditions vs Australia in unfavourable conditions is absolutely huge.


South Africa drew 1-1 in India and 1-1 in UAE against Pakistan

Australia got decimated 0-4 and 0-2

That's the difference

 

[Dan]

ESPNcricinfo @ESPNcricinfo
Clarke on the shot that got him out: "I was thinking if he [Broad] pitches it up I'm going to hit it as far as I can"

i don't even

"Sooner or later a ball will have my name on it or I'll be stranded. May as well be on a risky 30 when than happens rather than an utterly useless 5"

It didn't come off and the ball he chose to hit was obviously very poor, but controlled hyperaggression in that situation is a passable strategy option IMO. It comes off, you get the team up to 100 and things are slightly-less-pathetic. It doesn't, and you end up bowled out for around the same amount as if you'd pissed around for 20 minutes doing your best not to nick one before inevitably nicking one (in which time two other batsmen have also got out).

There's no use Australia pretending they could come back from 5/21 to make a meaningful score, on that deck, with Broad bowling as he was. They simply aren't good enough to do that. May as well score as many as you can before the inevitable happens.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

There's no use Australia pretending they could come back from 5/21 to make a meaningful score, on that deck, with Broad bowling as he was. They simply aren't good enough to do that. May as well score as many as you can before the inevitable happens.

Broad is a good bowler, and he bowled well. But he was not producing an endless supply of unplayable deliveries. The pitch was not an infamous WACA pitch full of cracks.

Australia has on the best tails around with Starc and co, but it must think long and hard about Faulkner playing as third seamer and batting at 8 until the middle order becomes more solid. Most teams would still be targetting 150+ or 200 from being 5/21 down. Starc, Hazelwood, Lyon and Johnson are a good bowling unit, but more runs are needed with the bat and Faulkner is the most talented player not in the team.

 

[Zinzan]

Jeez Australia's batsmen would do well to study the likes of a Kane Williamson to learn about playing the ball late. It was ridiculous how much in front of their bodies some of them were playing the ball.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Jeez Australia's batsmen would do well to study the likes of a Kane Williamson to learn about playing the ball late. It was ridiculous how much in front of their bodies some of them were playing the ball.

Just a few months to go till 85/86 is possibly repeated. Don't you dare bloody jinx it.

 

[Zinzan]

That point stands regardless of what happens in that series.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

That point stands regardless of what happens in that series.

Aye. Southee and Boult must be watching this and be chomping at the bit to get at them. But I am heading off topic now.

 

[morgieb]

Jeez Australia's batsmen would do well to study the likes of a Kane Williamson to learn about playing the ball late. It was ridiculous how much in front of their bodies some of them were playing the ball.

Or even Alastair Cook from the same Test.

 

[Zinzan]

Don't think it was quite a half volley. Was just short of a genuine half volley length, and it was so wide that Clarke had to really stretch for it, so controlling the bounce was always going to be difficult.

Dreadful shot selection, especially given that it was his first ball against Broad, so he gave himself no opportunity to adjust to the bounce.

Kind of reminds me of this Clarke dismissal at 6:37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ZrCTmlvQ0

 

[Dan]

Broad is a good bowler, and he bowled well. But he was not producing an endless supply of unplayable deliveries. The pitch was not an infamous WACA pitch full of cracks.

That's wholly irrelevant. I'm not blaming the pitch for the batsmen getting unplayable balls -- I'm saying they aren't good enough to handle those conditions. Broad, on his day, in those conditions, is simply too good for this Australian team to handle.

Australia has on the best tails around with Starc and co, but it must think long and hard about Faulkner playing as third seamer and batting at 8 until the middle order becomes more solid. Most teams would still be targetting 150+ or 200 from being 5/21 down. Starc, Hazelwood, Lyon and Johnson are a good bowling unit, but more runs are needed with the bat and Faulkner is the most talented player not in the team.

Starc is a myth as a batsman, utter myth. And my thoughts on Faulkner aside, if we're weakening our bowling attack because our middle order isn't doing the job, we're doing it wrong. Weakening a strength to fractionally strengthen a weakness is only going to lead to more lost Test matches. If you genuinely believe DUI Faulkner is Australia's third best seamer, fine, that doesn't apply (I vehemently disagree but won't bother debating it; nobody in here cares right now).


Basically, I don't think it's fair to single Clarke out here. The performance by the entire batting unit wasn't good enough, and Clarke's dismissal didn't happen in a vaccuum -- it was a response (a not-good-enough response; I'm not denying that for a second) to the ineptitude of everyone else in a particular situation. Looking at the innings and dismissal out of context is pointless.

And let's not kid ourselves, this was always on the cards after how the middle order has played in the series to date. In saying that, I don't think we were expecting anything this dramatic.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

There's no use Australia pretending they could come back from 5/21 to make a meaningful score, on that deck, with Broad bowling as he was. They simply aren't good enough to do that. May as well score as many as you can before the inevitable happens.

Broad is a good bowler, and he bowled well. But he was not producing an endless supply of unplayable deliveries. The pitch was not an infamous WACA pitch full of cracks.

That's wholly irrelevant. I'm not blaming the pitch for the batsmen getting unplayable balls -- I'm saying they aren't good enough to handle those conditions. Broad, on his day, in those conditions, is simply too good for this Australian team to handle.

I was referring to your point that at 21/5 Australia could not make a meaningful score. I was saying that they should have been aiming to do so as it was not like the pitch was complete rubbish to bat on and Broad was not utterly unplayable (and is only one bowler).

Australia has on the best tails around with Starc and co, but it must think long and hard about Faulkner playing as third seamer and batting at 8 until the middle order becomes more solid. Most teams would still be targetting 150+ or 200 from being 5/21 down. Starc, Hazelwood, Lyon and Johnson are a good bowling unit, but more runs are needed with the bat and Faulkner is the most talented player not in the team.

Starc is a myth as a batsman, utter myth. And my thoughts on Faulkner aside, if we're weakening our bowling attack because our middle order isn't doing the job, we're doing it wrong. Weakening a strength to fractionally strengthen a weakness is only going to lead to more lost Test matches. If you genuinely believe DUI Faulkner is Australia's third best seamer, fine, that doesn't apply (I vehemently disagree but won't bother debating it; nobody in here cares right now).

You are illogical. It depends on how much the strength is weakened and how much the weakness is strengthened. If the bowling goes from dismissing sides 10 runs more, but 20 runs more are scored with the bat, then it works fine. You have said that Faulkner would only "fractionally" improve the batting, which is begging the question.

Basically, I don't think it's fair to single Clarke out here. The performance by the entire batting unit wasn't good enough, and Clarke's dismissal didn't happen in a vaccuum -- it was a response (a not-good-enough response; I'm not denying that for a second) to the ineptitude of everyone else in a particular situation. Looking at the innings and dismissal out of context is pointless.

And let's not kid ourselves, this was always on the cards after how the middle order has played in the series to date. In saying that, I don't think we were expecting anything this dramatic.

I love your passion and emotion in this post and others today.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

One stat I found interesting yesterday was that Root was the leading run scorer heading into the match, but the next three were Australians, despite being behind 2-1 in the series. That to me demonstrates the benefits of a deep batting line up with a player like Ali batting at 8.

 

[Black_Warrior]

One stat I found interesting yesterday was that Root was the leading run scorer heading into the match, but the next three were Australians, despite being behind 2-1 in the series. That to me demonstrates the benefits of a deep batting line up with a player like Ali batting at 8.

Also the fact that Lords was a one-off

 

[Dan]

You are illogical. It depends on how much the strength is weakened and how much the weakness is strengthened. If the bowling goes from dismissing sides 10 runs more, but 20 runs more are scored with the bat, then it works fine. You have said that Faulkner would only "fractionally" improve the batting, which is begging the question.

From a technical standpoint, Faulkner has the same tendencies that got Australia in trouble during this game (goes hard at the ball with his hands, doesn't play under his eyes etc.), so I can't see him being a magic bullet solution, or much more than a fractional improvement (especially with how Mitch Marsh has played in his opportunities this series).

As I said before, it depends upon how you rate Faulkner. If you think he's more-or-less the third best seamer in Australia but just so happens to be able to bat too (in the same way Moeen is England's best spinner but can bat too), then sure, you're losing little in the bowling department and gaining some extra batting. But if you think the bowling gap is wider between Starc and Faulkner, you're weakening the bowling, adding a little lower order batting that is fractional in the grand scheme of things; the #8 averaging 15 or 25 doesn't matter much in the business of actually winning Test matches if the top order consistently suck as much as they've sucked here.

 

[Dan]

One stat I found interesting yesterday was that Root was the leading run scorer heading into the match, but the next three were Australians, despite being behind 2-1 in the series. That to me demonstrates the benefits of a deep batting line up with a player like Ali batting at 8.

Really shows how bowler-centric this series has been, I guess. Very little good batting on display from either side. Rogers, Root and Smith the only ones gaining much credit, as far as I can tell.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

From a technical standpoint, Faulkner has the same tendencies that got Australia in trouble during this game (goes hard at the ball with his hands, doesn't play under his eyes etc.), so I can't see him being a magic bullet solution, or much more than a fractional improvement (especially with how Mitch Marsh has played in his opportunities this series).

I do not understand the any great value of any Mitchell Marsh comparison. This is about #8, not #6. I am not a Mitch Marsh fan at all and am not surprised he failed with the bat. I do not necessarily think that Faulkner would have failed with the bat, but they play differing roles for what I am putting forward for debate.

As I said before, it depends upon how you rate Faulkner. If you think he's more-or-less the third best seamer in Australia but just so happens to be able to bat too (in the same way Moeen is England's best spinner but can bat too), then sure, you're losing little in the bowling department and gaining some extra batting.

No, if you think he's the third best seamer, then you lose nothing with the ball.

But if you think the bowling gap is wider between Starc and Faulkner, you're weakening the bowling, adding a little lower order batting that is fractional in the grand scheme of things; the #8 averaging 15 or 25 doesn't matter much in the business of actually winning Test matches if the top order consistently suck as much as they've sucked here.

Its not necessarily Starc, it could be Hazelwood or Johnson. My point is while Australia continues to struggle with its batting, it really should ponder having Faulkner at 8. He has an excellent FC bowling record, we all know that he has batting talent in spades, and he did not look rubbish bowling in his only test in England years ago. Yes, he may be slower than Johnson or Starc, but he is young and fit and can probably bowl a lot of overs in long if not longer spells (unless there is something I am unaware of).

A number 8 averaging over 30 with the bat, and possibly getting closer to 40 over time with continued improvement, while averaging under 30 with the ball and taking wickets is immensely valuable to a side. Immensely.

I understand why he is not in the team presently, I am merely saying that this needs to be rethought given Australia's current performances. I think the only team that Faulkner does not play for right now other than Australia, is South Africa, and that is down a lot to circumatances of how Morkel, Steyn and Philander bowl. He would make every other test team, at least for a 3 match trial. And even then, Vernon's record of late is hardly impressive. If he was not to up his game soon, he could take his #8 role off him if eligible for selection.

 

[GIMH]

Really shows how bowler-centric this series has been, I guess. Very little good batting on display from either side. Rogers, Root and Smith the only ones gaining much credit, as far as I can tell.

Unless I'm mistaken there's only those three and Wood (lol) averaging over 40

 

[fredfertang]

Joe Root is just a wonderful cricketer.

Should be made an honorary Lancastrian