*Official* Fourth Test (Old Trafford, Manchester) 19-23 July

[GIMH]

Southee https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...vs-new-zealand-2nd-test-518948/full-scorecard

Interesting that Warner got MOTM, only in the context of the brief discussion I had with @Prince EWS when Stokes didn’t get it at Lords

 

[Spark]

Interesting that Warner got MOTM, only in the context of the brief discussion I had with @Prince EWS when Stokes didn’t get it at Lords

I'd have to go back and look but IIRC he was utterly bewildered that Bracewell didn't get the gong in that game too, but that was when Channel 9 was doing a dumb**** experiment with fan voted MOTM iirc. Didn't last long.

 

[GIMH]

I share the frustration with the wasted starts (again) but the batting hasn't really been the problem in this series IMO. The bowling has. If they bowl to the standard we actually expect them to bowl at then 300-320 is a perfectly acceptable first innings score on a pitch doing a little - not a lot, but a little. It doesn't look a great score in no small part because we don't quite trust the bowlers right now to restrict England to a subpar score regularly.

Kind of agree but if we do pull a 3-2 out here, keeping Smith and Labu quiet will be hard to top as a defining factor

 

[Spark]

Kind of agree but if we do pull a 3-2 out here, keeping Smith and Labu quiet will be hard to top as a defining factor

To an extent but it doesn't matter who gets them, only that you get them, and even if the last two innings have been underwhelming it's still 250 and 300, which are by no means terrible totals. This attack should be able to defend scores like that in English conditions - Anderson and Broad built a whole career out of doing that, after all.

 

[loterry1994]

I share the frustration with the wasted starts (again) but the batting hasn't really been the problem in this series IMO. The bowling has. If they bowl to the standard we actually expect them to bowl at then 300-320 is a perfectly acceptable first innings score on a pitch doing a little - not a lot, but a little. It doesn't look a great score in no small part because we don't quite trust the bowlers right now to restrict England to a subpar score regularly.

lol what are you on about the bowling has pretty much kept them in most games. The batting hasn’t been great bar the innings were like they’ve been saved by one guy. We’ve barely gone over 300 most inningsand we’ve been in some good positions. And same goes for this innings we were in a position to get 400 plus. The bowling has been better than the batting this series which has also been let down sometimes with the short stuff. But their bowling really kept them in game 1 and 2 especially and nearly won game 3 for Aus after being rolled their 2nd innings

 

[Spark]

lol what are you on about the bowling has pretty much kept them in most games. The batting hasn’t been great bar the innings were like they’ve been saved by one guy. We’ve barely gone over 300 most inningsand we’ve been in some good positions. And same goes for this innings we were in a position to get 400 plus

When we've lost series in England before it's because we've been rissoled for sub-200 scores. Hasn't happened at all this series.

Meanwhile the bowlers have let a potential 80 run lead turn into a 25 run lead and 6/170 turn into 7/250 and game over. Even at Lord's the batsmen did their job and gave the bowlers a target of 370 to bowl at and they very nearly ****ed it up through some dreadful tactics.

The 2013 attack would have been absolutely delighted if you could say you could guarantee 500+ runs across the game for them to defend instead of 300. We honestly could have won a fair few of those Test matches if that had been the case.

 

[Gob]

Yeah, it only takes one ball for a bowler to own a batsman, don't you agree?

No

 

[GIMH]

To an extent but it doesn't matter who gets them, only that you get them, and even if the last two innings have been underwhelming it's still 250 and 300, which are by no means terrible totals. This attack should be able to defend scores like that in English conditions - Anderson and Broad built a whole career out of doing that, after all.

Yeah fair. That being said, hard to say Cummins and Starc haven’t overall been impressive. But it has felt like at times Australia have lost their heads collectively with the ball.

Also feels like there’s been not a lot beyond them two since Lyon went - not that we needed reminding but his importance has been underlined.

You can say similar of Leach, but Stokes has backed Moeen and although he’s overall not been great, he’s picked up a few key wickets these last couple of innings.

 

[loterry1994]

When we've lost series in England before it's because we've been rissoled for sub-200 scores. Hasn't happened at all this series.

Meanwhile the bowlers have let a potential 80 run lead turn into a 25 run lead and 6/170 turn into 7/250 and game over. Even at Lord's the batsmen did their job and gave the bowlers a target of 370 to bowl at and they very nearly ****ed it up through some dreadful tactics.

The 2013 attack would have been absolutely delighted if you could say you could guarantee 500+ runs across the game for them to defend instead of 300. We honestly could have won a fair few of those Test matches if that had been the case.

yeah the batting hasn’t been the problem yet we’ve got Warner, marnus, smith who have barely scored runs apart from a century. And everyone from Carey down being rolled for like under 30 most innings. The bowlers pretty much won them game 1 and 2 restricting England when they were in good positions don’t forget Lyon and Cummins saving our asses game 1. Game 3 aus couldn’t get hardly above 250 yet the bowlers got England out under that the first innings

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

No

ok

 

[Spark]

Yeah fair. That being said, hard to say Cummins and Starc haven’t overall been impressive. But it has felt like at times Australia have lost their heads collectively with the ball.

Also feels like there’s been not a lot beyond them two since Lyon went - not that we needed reminding but his importance has been underlined.

You can say similar of Leach, but Stokes has backed Moeen and although he’s overall not been great, he’s picked up a few key wickets these last couple of innings.

Starc definitely has but this is actually as mediocre as I've seen Cummins across a series in quite a while (I think you have to asterisk India given all the other **** going on in his life). He's got wickets but he's lacked penetration with the new ball which has made life much harder and he's had absolutely no control - this has to be his highest ER across a series by a mile.

yeah the batting hasn’t been the problem yet we’ve got Warner, marnus, smith who have barely scored runs apart from a century. And everyone from Carey down being rolled for like under 30 most innings. The bowlers pretty much won them game 1 and 2 restricting England when they were in good positions don’t forget Lyon and Cummins saving our asses game 1

The bowlers definitely didn't win them the game at Lord's. Who let them get to that great position with a session of hot garbage in the first place? Absolutely wild that you're blaming the batsmen in that game after they put up 400+ under clouds and lights in the first innings.

 

[Gob]

When we've lost series in England before it's because we've been rissoled for sub-200 scores. Hasn't happened at all this series.

Meanwhile the bowlers have let a potential 80 run lead turn into a 25 run lead and 6/170 turn into 7/250 and game over. Even at Lord's the batsmen did their job and gave the bowlers a target of 370 to bowl at and they very nearly ****ed it up through some dreadful tactics.

The 2013 attack would have been absolutely delighted if you could say you could guarantee 500+ runs across the game for them to defend instead of 300. We honestly could have won a fair few of those Test matches if that had been the case.

Yeah they were sent in 3 times and did not lollaps once. Every single time they were sent in, I was fearing 150 AO too. They have definitely improved in that regard

 

[Spark]

Yeah they were sent in 3 times and did not lollaps once. Every single time they were sent in, I was fearing 150 AO too. They have definitely improved in that regard

Yep. I've shifted to team @OverratedSanity on this one - people absolutely love making excuses for these bowlers for some reason even when they're clearly underperforming and are liable to **** the bed every one or two games. By no means is the batting doing amazing but this is, by a mile, the best we've batted in England in the last 15 years.

 

[GIMH]

Starc definitely has but this is actually as mediocre as I've seen Cummins across a series in quite a while (I think you have to asterisk India given all the other **** going on in his life). He's got wickets but he's lacked penetration with the new ball which has made life much harder and he's had absolutely no control - this has to be his highest ER across a series by a mile.



The bowlers definitely didn't win them the game at Lord's. Who let them get to that great position with a session of hot garbage in the first place? Absolutely wild that you're blaming the batsmen in that game after they put up 400+ under clouds and lights in the first innings.

Yeah fair enough on Cummins - Crawley has largely played him comfortably but on the other hand he’s had Root’s number. If Oz take the urn home that’ll be a huge factor (that and illicit run outs)

 

[Gob]

Also with regards to bowling, you have to factor in how England play aswell. I've been saying this for a while that this attack is great when batsmen are defensive but collectively lose their heads when someone goes on the attack

 

[Spark]

Also with regards to bowling, you have to factor in how England play aswell. I've been saying this for a while that this attack is great when batsmen are defensive but collectively lose their heads when someone goes on the attack

The thing that ****s me though is that England haven't even had to attack us to bring out **** bowling. In the majority of the innings the new ball bowling has been trash, so many leg stump half volleys and the like to Crawley in particular when every fool with eyes knows he's strong through midwicket and vulnerable outside off stump.

 

[loterry1994]

Starc definitely has but this is actually as mediocre as I've seen Cummins across a series in quite a while (I think you have to asterisk India given all the other **** going on in his life). He's got wickets but he's lacked penetration with the new ball which has made life much harder and he's had absolutely no control - this has to be his highest ER across a series by a mile.



The bowlers definitely didn't win them the game at Lord's. Who let them get to that great position with a session of hot garbage in the first place? Absolutely wild that you're blaming the batsmen in that game after they put up 400+ under clouds and lights in the first innings.

and what did aus have to chase the last innings?I ain’t blaming the Batters but to say they’ve been better than the bowlers I don’t agree at all. And what about test 2 and 3. When England was like 1-200 and they got restricted. Test 3 the batters rolled twice. 260 was nothing yeah the bowlers could have restricted England to like 180 but they still had a lead. And don’t even go on about aus 2nd batting innings that test the bowlers nearly won that trying to defend like 220. I ain’t comparing the past England series cause these batting conditions have been way better than the past

 

[GotSpin]

Also with regards to bowling, you have to factor in how England play aswell. I've been saying this for a while that this attack is great when batsmen are defensive but collectively lose their heads when someone goes on the attack

That’s down to the team tactics though

If England want to go all out and attack, then bowl wide outside off stump and stack and the off field. Bowling straight and spreading the field on either side isn’t the answer

 

[Spark]

and what did aus have to chase the last innings?I ain’t blaming the Batters but to say they’ve been better than the bowlers I don’t agree at all. And what about test 2 and 3. When England was like 1-200 and they got restricted. Test 3 the batters rolled twice. 260 was nothing yeah the bowlers could have restricted England to like 180 but they still had a lead. And don’t even go on about aus 2nd batting innings that test the bowlers nearly won that trying to defend like 220

?

What did Aus have to chase in the last innings... at Lord's? And had the bowlers done their job at Headingley England would have been chasing north of 300, not 250 (not least because the batsmen wouldn't have had to do as much work under clouds on Day 3!)

 

[honestbharani]

That’s down to the team tactics though

If England want to go all out and attack, then bowl wide outside off stump and stack and the off field. Bowling straight and spreading the field on either side isn’t the answer

#spooked.


But game nicely setup after day 1 here. I feel 300 is par and Aus are probably going to be +20 of that, at least. And if the cloudy conditions come up when England bat, it could be a tough game for them from there.