2nd Test at Adelaide - 16 to 20 Dec

[wellAlbidarned]

The seam bowling isn't really the problem though. It's easy to rattle off a bunch of seamers who might theoretically have been okay in Tests, but when all your fast bowlers and all your batsmen are averaging <32, taking punts changing the bowling isn't going to solve anything.

I totally disagree that they've been too cautious with the batting selections. They keep stridently seemingly to believe that the performances of the batsmen they're selecting aren't the best they can do and then swapping them out for similar standard players who perform similiarly. They've tried everything too - the best county performers (Burns, Pope, Sibley, etc), blokes who just look good (Crawley, Vince, etc), blokes who've done well in other formats (Roy, Hales, Buttler, etc) - all failed.

The problem isn't their selection, it's that their batsmen (both the ones they are selecting and the ones they aren't) aren't very good. It's not a very ***y problem to try and solve in our airchairs on CW, but I think it's true.

yeah anyone who was following NZ cricket through the dark days of 2007-2010 knows this pattern. You can have genuinely bad selections but when it's failure after failure you have to accept that your domestic cricket just sucks.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

no

starc rarely played, vegan ****ing siddle played more than he should have and pattinson turned up once or twice. haze didn't play all the tests. mitch ****ing marsh got a random fifer. next ashes bowling line up/lower order is settled if there are no injuries:

1.
2.
3. Labuschagne
4. Smith
5.
6. Green
7. Carey
8. Cummins
9. Starc
10. Hazlewood
11. Lyon

the issues that aus has to deal with are not really critical and they can plan the tour around a core of 8 players plus neser and richardson as backup

Is Lyon a dead cert for the next Ashes? He's 34 now and in the 400 club.

 

[Prince EWS]

yeah anyone who was following NZ cricket through the dark days of 2007-2010 knows this pattern. You can have genuinely bad selections but when it's failure after failure you have to accept that your domestic cricket just sucks.

The easiest thing to solve on an online forum is bad selection - it's one thing we might have enough information on to truly be better than the experts, so it's easy to spend a lot of time trying to improve a team by focussing on it.

But as far as England being absolutely shithouse in Australia right now, I really don't think it's the problem. I'd have picked slightly different teams too but I don't think I would've got signficantly better results. The problems are either deeper than just watching all their internationals and some of their domestic games can really properly solve, or - and people hate this one - it could just be bad luck. You can do mostly everything right and still just not produce world class players in one discipline for a mini-generation. Test cricket is competitive - you can't have everyone be good at once. I do think it's probably the former more than the latter for England right now, but I do like to throw the latter out occassionally to watch people squirm.

 

[Starfighter]

Is Lyon a dead cert for the next Ashes? He's 34 now and in the 400 club.

Well the cupboard's not exactly full. Holland is the same age and has failed before. Swepson's the only other candidate but needs to get established in the team first. Sangha is a good prospect but is obviously a long way off.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I realise that, but I wonder if he might retire. I can't see Lyon being dropped (especially the way he is bowling atm).

 

[Prince EWS]

I realise that, but I wonder if he might retire. I can't see Lyon being dropped (especially the way he is bowling atm).

I'm convinced he'll be dropped before he retires unless he has a serious injury tbh.

 

[ImpatientLime]

The easiest thing to solve on an online forum is bad selection - it's one thing we might have enough information on to truly be better than the experts, so it's easy to spend a lot of time trying to improve a team by focussing on it.

But as far as England being absolutely ****house in Australia right now, I really don't think it's the problem. I'd have picked slightly different teams too but I don't think I would've got signficantly better results. The problems are either deeper than just watching all their internationals and some of their domestic games can really properly solve, or - and people hate this one - it could just be bad luck. You can do mostly everything right and still just not produce world class players in one discipline for a mini-generation. Test cricket is competitive - you can't have everyone be good at once. I do think it's probably the former more than the latter for England right now, but I do like to throw the latter out occassionally to watch people squirm.

the luck piece is most certainly worth a mention. archer and stone don't turn this series around but maybe via blunt force they pick up wickets earlier for England and make them more potent.

stone I really think is a gun waiting to happen if his paper mache body holds up.

 

[TimAngas]

The three big tours in the next 1.5 years are Pakistan (?) , India and the Ashes. I feel pretty confident Lyon and Warner will play all three barring injury; the resumes these guys have built will probably convince selectors to keep them on even if they have an extended run of bad form. I think the 2023/24 summer is the first where there is a reasonable likelihood we might not see one of them.

 

[Gob]

The three big tours in the next 1.5 years are Pakistan (?) , India and the Ashes. I feel pretty confident Lyon and Warner will play all three barring injury; the resumes these guys have built will probably convince selectors to keep them on even if they have an extended run of bad form. I think the 2023/24 summer is the first where there is a reasonable likelihood we might not see one of them.

15 tests over the next 12 months. Delicious

 

[Flem274*]

England's bowling woes are a bit overstated. Sure they're nerfed in Australia but unlike the batsmen they're often playing well enough.

If England could score 400-500 runs I think the bowling would grow an arm and a leg, both through scoreboard pressure and getting a proper rest.

 

[Gob]

England's bowling woes are a bit overstated. Sure they're nerfed in Australia but unlike the batsmen they're often playing well enough.

If England could score 400-500 runs I think the bowling would grow an arm and a leg, both through scoreboard pressure and getting a proper rest.

Ok

 

[ImpatientLime]

Question to England fans. Any updates on Root's penis?

last seen in the gob

 

[SteveNZ]

At 0-2 down here, the least England need to do from the MCG and beyond is to show they're actually prepared to learn and work hard to overcome their serious batting woes. It can start today too.

By my count, 18 of their 22 dismissals of the top 7 have been caught between keeper and gully. Contrast that with Australia, who have 6 of 22 in the cordon from their top 7. I know the pitches have done a wee bit and Australia were better at using those conditions, but that says it all for me in terms of England's woeful inability to leave well coupled with their sub-par technique. If I knew how to compare the leave % for both sides, I'd throw that in too.

They're probably still going to lose 5-0 but it would be nice to see England make a concerted effort to fix up what's staring them in the face - that they are woeful outside off stump and are never going to be a decent Test side until they address that. And if the guys in the mix now can't do it, pick someone who will - although what we in NZ saw of Lawrence and Crawley in particular, and probably Bairstow, they're potentially even worse.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I realise that, but I wonder if he might retire. I can't see Lyon being dropped (especially the way he is bowling atm).

Can't imagine him ever retiring. What else would he do?

 

[TheJediBrah]

By my count, 18 of their 22 dismissals of the top 7 have been caught between keeper and gully. Contrast that with Australia, who have 6 of 22 in the cordon from their top 7. I know the pitches have done a wee bit and Australia were better at using those conditions, but that says it all for me in terms of England's woeful inability to leave well coupled with their sub-par technique. If I knew how to compare the leave % for both sides, I'd throw that in too.

Not a great metric in this case because a high proportion of the Aus wickets have been in declaration/ declaration-planning batting. Not going to see as many caught behind the wicket in those scenarios

 

[SteveNZ]

Not a great metric in this case because a high proportion of the Aus wickets have been in declaration/ declaration-planning batting. Not going to see as many caught behind the wicket in those scenarios

Still stands by my count. Australia got to 470 and 420 in consecutive Tests in their first innings without feeding the cordon. 2nd innings here,I take your point- although they still played Test style cricket until they were 4 down.

No doubt the leave percentage would be an ideal metric too but I don't know how to go about it.

 

[Salamuddin]

You're not entirely wrong that it's a very different set of conditions but your individual points are all poor. Whether or not better Aussie teams have been beaten means nothing because they're not up against the same English teams. Any reduction in output from Smith could, and should, easily be balanced out by improvement by the rest. It's juss unlikely that the rest of Australia's batting would be as bad as they were in 2019 as it is that Smith will be as good. And Warner did nothing in 2019 and Aus were still the better team . . . replacing him with a sign post wouldn't hurt their chances in comparison with that.

You don't need to look back to 2001 lol. 2019 was literally just 2 years ago, the sides were nearly identical.

Australia really weren't the better team in 2019. The series scoreline would have reflected that if they were.

The 2nd test would almost certainly have been an england win had it not been for rain. And if you're arguing Australia we're unlucky at headingley so were England in the first test given they lost Anderson at a point when they were ascendant.

 

[Salamuddin]

why are we talking about a series in 2023 anyway? 18 months is forever and a day in tests; warner could retire, blokes could get injured, some freak talent could come from nowhere, pope could sort out his issues against spin etc. meanwhile aus has a whole bunch of very difficult tours coming up; who knows what’ll happen there.

My point. People labelling Australia warm to massive favourites for 2023 based off winning this series are being highly presumptuous.
This series means sweet Jack all in terms of how Australia will fare in England.

 

[Salamuddin]

no

starc rarely played, vegan ****ing siddle played more than he should have and pattinson turned up once or twice. haze didn't play all the tests. mitch ****ing marsh got a random fifer. next ashes bowling line up/lower order is settled if there are no injuries:

1.
2.
3. Labuschagne
4. Smith
5.
6. Green
7. Carey
8. Cummins
9. Starc
10. Hazlewood
11. Lyon

the issues that aus has to deal with are not really critical and they can plan the tour around a core of 8 players plus neser and richardson as backup

Starc doesn't bowl well outside Australia. Hazelwood also is a much better bowler in Australia _ he did well in Ashes 2019 but let's see if he can back it up in 2023 given he will be 32.

Lyons record in England is ok _ but hardly world beating.
This Aussie attack is good but let's not pretend it's the second coming of croft, Roberts, garner and holding.

 

[JBMAC]

Maybe it is one of their weakest.
Strange though given they have 2 of their best ever fast bowlers, one of their best ever batsman, and one of their best ever all rounders.

Thats 4 out of 11 players. That percentile can not possibley "carry" the whole team on it's shoulders and expect positive results.