***Official*** 2nd Test at Adelaide

[quincywagstaff]

Based on what I've seen so far, the most similar touring England side to Oz this reminds me of is 2002/03. In the leadup they've been hampered by regular injuries and key absences, fairly uninspiring warm-up matches form but above all else their side just doesn't look good enough. Their side (like 02/03) looks so far as an awkward mix of veteran players past their best and younger players who are too raw to handle the challenges of an Australian trip and overall, the side lacking the qualities necessary to win in Oz.

The big difference between this tour and 02/03 is this Australian side is considerably weaker (especially in the batting) but England just don't seem capable of exposing those flaws for any significant amount of time. Unless a couple of Australia's pacemen get injured, I can't see England coming back into this series.

 

[quincywagstaff]

I feel England have really let all this petty stuff get into their heads. Didn't handle it well between the tests and haven't handled it well this test.

Yeah, I think that all resulted from the frustration of how badly they fell away in Brisbane over the final two days and the realisation that this was going to be a very long tour and how difficult Australia and its media and fans and players can be to an English side that's struggling.

 

[Spark]

He's got the hair. Perhaps he can bring back the Brylcreem look.


I reckon they should go for the opposite of Anderson's preferred approach and completely ignore all the sledging and other trash. Just don't react.

I think this is what Marsh did actually. Didn't get involved at all.

 

[Spark]

I'm actually wondering if the team (well, Smith in particular) made a very deliberate decision to make it a team-wide decision to bat cautiously. It's been very notable in both Tests already that, when a batsman falls, the response from both the set and new batsman has been to knuckle down for a while (with the exception of Tim Paine today, and even then that was counterattack to put the pressure back on the bowler) to avoid another wicket falling quickly. I suspect this is their very conscious attempt to stop the lollapses.

 

[quincywagstaff]

While Marsh's century is deservedly getting all the highlights, I actually think Paine's batting effort was the most significant part of today because he did something that Nevill largely couldn't do; counterattack in a challenging situation. Clearly Marsh was looking to bat with restraint and if Paine had done the same, the innings could've easily bogged down against a jubliant England side who'd gotten a wicket in the opening over of the day. But Paine's aggressiveness really deflated England and once the 50 partnership came up quickly, they seemed to know their chance had gone.

And this is why Nevill was dropped and didn't regain his place; he showed he was a fighter as a Test bat but never really showed an ability to counterattack (or even attack) to change the momentum of an innings that a No. 7 often needs to do. That's probably why Australia turned to Wade because he'd shown that ability in his first Test stint but his batting declined woefully in this second stint. And now Paine showed today he's capable of doing it.

I'm actually wondering if the team (well, Smith in particular) made a very deliberate decision to make it a team-wide decision to bat cautiously. It's been very notable in both Tests already that, when a batsman falls, the response from both the set and new batsman has been to knuckle down for a while (with the exception of Tim Paine today, and even then that was counterattack to put the pressure back on the bowler) to avoid another wicket falling quickly. I suspect this is their very conscious attempt to stop the lollapses.

Perhaps they've put their egos away and realised you can't always be aggressive and attacking, especially when your batting lineup isn't particularly strong on paper. This is the most restrained I've seen an Australian batting lineup play in a home Ashes contest since possibly 1990/91 and it's worked very well so far, especially as I suspect many of England's plans were based on Australia being their usual aggressive selves.

 

[Gnske]

Wow, what an innings from Tim Paine, Marsh too. Hope Spikey doesn't drink himself into the dirt.

 

[burr]

I'm actually wondering if the team (well, Smith in particular) made a very deliberate decision to make it a team-wide decision to bat cautiously. It's been very notable in both Tests already that, when a batsman falls, the response from both the set and new batsman has been to knuckle down for a while (with the exception of Tim Paine today, and even then that was counterattack to put the pressure back on the bowler) to avoid another wicket falling quickly. I suspect this is their very conscious attempt to stop the lollapses.

Don't know abut team wide but there is no doubt Smith has made a conscious decision to bat cautiously when required since the uproar about Australian collapses. I like that about Smith, he's quite happy to read and listen to what people are saying and adapt his game if required. The opposite of the Khawaja approach.

Just saw that Marsh overturned lbw. Man, that was plumb. What was DRS thinking!

 

[Second Spitter]

Don't know abut team wide but there is no doubt Smith has made a conscious decision to bat cautiously when required since the uproar about Australian collapses. I like that about Smith, he's quite happy to read and listen to what people are saying and adapt his game if required. The opposite of the Khawaja approach.

Just saw that Marsh overturned lbw. Man, that was plumb. What was DRS thinking!

notsureifserious.gif

 

[Cow]

DRS should be switched off if decisions like that are gonna happen.

 

[Gob]

That rat ass rain saved England. Could have so easily been four down by the stumps.

Batting should be considerably easier in the first two sessions.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, the way they bowled to the tail in particular was completely idiotic. Very obviously just wanted petty revenge for how Australia bowled at Brisbane, completely forgetting that Australia did that because they have the bowlers and know-how to do it properly.

I genuinely don't know why they've gotten in such a horrible mood tbh. Surely nothing that happened in Brisbane was that bad on the scheme of things?

I don't know that they have really. It's just the media playing everything up to make it look there's all this huge drama that really isn't there

 

[stephen]

Yeah it would have been a great declaration by Smith if the rain hadn't intervened. Just enough overs to take some wickets, not enough to really counterattack properly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

DRS should be switched off if decisions like that are gonna happen.

It shouldn't change wrong decisions into correct decisions?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yeah it would have been a great declaration by Smith if the rain hadn't intervened. Just enough overs to take some wickets, not enough to really counterattack properly.

The only way it's not a horrible declaration is if rain wipes out the best part of 2 days.

So in summary it's a horrible declaration. No ifs or buts.

 

[Gob]

The only way it's not a horrible declaration is if rain wipes out the best part of 2 days.

So in summary it's a horrible declaration. No ifs or buts.

lol no

 

[morgieb]

The only way it's not a horrible declaration is if rain wipes out the best part of 2 days.

So in summary it's a horrible declaration. No ifs or buts.

Oh look, it's mr "I only think declaration is a good idea if the side is already on 1000+"

I think it was a justifiable declaration. What would be better for Australia - England being 1/30 after Australia scored 500, or being 4/70 after Australia scored 450? Didn't work out given the rain (assuming that the rain could've been predicted I'd have batted on), but hardly a horrible decision. Besides, the sort of bowling that England was dishing up does no-one any good with regards to a contest and also makes the risk of injury to one of Australia's bowlers higher.

I also think there's a bit of over-rating of the pink ball under lights re: how much it swings. We'll start to see really funky **** until more Day-Nighters get played.

In any case, a horrible declaration is one that dramatically increases the opposition chances of victory by giving them a carrot, like Root's declaration at Headingley, or for that matter the Brisbane game (which was probably influenced by the lack of D/Ners played). I don't think this one applies.

 

[morgieb]

And this is why Nevill was dropped and didn't regain his place; he showed he was a fighter as a Test bat but never really showed an ability to counterattack (or even attack) to change the momentum of an innings that a No. 7 often needs to do. That's probably why Australia turned to Wade because he'd shown that ability in his first Test stint but his batting declined woefully in this second stint. And now Paine showed today he's capable of doing it.

This is actually a point I've thought about for a while - Nevill's probably the best keeper-batsman in the country, but he's not the best keeper-batsman in the role Australia want him to play. Now I think with that we've been spoiled by Gilchrist and Haddin, but I do see why Australia would want their 7 to be counter-attacking.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Oh look, it's mr "I only think declaration is a good idea if the side is already on 1000+"

I think it was a justifiable declaration. What would be better for Australia - England being 1/30 after Australia scored 500, or being 4/70 after Australia scored 450? Didn't work out given the rain (assuming that the rain could've been predicted I'd have batted on), but hardly a horrible decision. Besides, the sort of bowling that England was dishing up does no-one any good with regards to a contest and also makes the risk of injury to one of Australia's bowlers higher.

I also think there's a bit of over-rating of the pink ball under lights re: how much it swings. We'll start to see really funky **** until more Day-Nighters get played.

In any case, a horrible declaration is one that dramatically increases the opposition chances of victory by giving them a carrot, like Root's declaration at Headingley, or for that matter the Brisbane game (which was probably influenced by the lack of D/Ners played). I don't think this one applies.

Yes Root's declaration at Headingley was utterly atrocious. Not only for the fact that match was always likely to be the only time West Indies were competitive, I could understand it more if West Indies had declared from Root's position.

This declaration was abysmal. The new ball is a threat regardless of the time of day. Australia have basically sacrificed an unknown number of runs to gain virtually no advantage with conditions whatsoever. If you want to get aggressive then throw the bat more.

If England get anything even vaguely competitive, even 270-280. Then the declaration is bad. Australia have to bat again and score the runs they should have had already, but this time they have to temper your aggression and start against a fresh attack. We know that Smith doesn't like to enforce the follow-on anyway, so basically Australia will have to bat again and be more circumspect to reach the lead they should have had in the first place. A guy on 120odd not out and a set tailender against a tired attack having licence to attack will score faster.

If England got 350+ then the premature declaration becomes even more pivotal and gives England a better chance of winning, whilst not increasing Australia's odds of winning at all.

If England got 400+ the declaration looks horrific.

 

[Spark]

Scaly is as silly on declarations as Warne but in the opposite direction

 

[Daemon]

I do think the declaration was unnecessary tbf. Manage to rack up 500 and England would crumble faster under scoreboard pressure. Get all out for 450 and you get to bowl at them before stumps anyways.

That said it was a perfectly understandable decision and nothing to get worked up over.