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

[flibbertyjibber]

If Root is still there at tea then we will win IMO

Game will be over by tea regardless. If we get close the last 30 runs will come quickly anyway and mean it is over before tea. Gutted I will leave for work at 7.00

 

[morgieb]

Game will be over by tea regardless. If we get close the last 30 runs will come quickly anyway and mean it is over before tea. Gutted I will leave for work at 7.00

Have to remember tea's the first session here, I doubt 180 runs can be scored in a session.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I can see it happening one day that an Aussie player will overstep the mark when they sledge and an opposition player will bring up Hughes which would be horrible but in the heat of the moment stupid things happen and I fear it may.

Warner, Starc and Lyon were present that day, the opposition, so if that would happen it would happen now.

 

[GIMH]

Game will be over by tea regardless. If we get close the last 30 runs will come quickly anyway and mean it is over before tea. Gutted I will leave for work at 7.00

Yeah, I agree but you mean dinner

I wanted to show off that I knew the right names for the breaks

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Have to remember tea's the first session here, I doubt 180 runs can be scored in a session.

Ha, yeah. Bloody stupid system, guess it means I get 20 extra minutes to watch though before I leave.

 

[GIMH]

Seriously though. Anyone know what Tim Paine said, and/or what Matt Prior was talking about?

 

[Woodster]

While the decision to not follow-on/declare will come under the microscope if Australia lose (FTR, I was undecided as to whether the decision to follow-on or not was the right one, and reckon had the rain been forecast then Australia should've targeted 500, which probably wasn't that much of a stretch the way the sides were batting and bowling), Ithink the bigger issue was Australia's play from about the second session of Day 3 onwards. I don't really blame Australia for the collapse on Night 3 - Anderson and Woakes were bowling genuine hand grenades out there - but the decision to bowl short stuff to Overton and Woakes without anything pitched up or length balls in the spell was complacent and moronic. And some of the shots played in the first session yesterday (especially by Paine, the others were at least bowlers) were pretty bad when nuckling down could well have seen Australia survive another 10-20 overs, and given Australia a larger target to defend and a newer ball under lights.

TL;DR - if Australia have played better at key moments we'd have possibly been talking about a 450-500 sort of chase, which would've at least ensured England couldn't win the game without a miracle.

I wouldn’t blame the Aussie bats for what happened under lights, the ball was going round corners and off the deck against two excellent exponents of those conditions, but they shouldn’t have been batting at that point. Had the shoe been on the other foot and England were batting a similar score line was more than possible.

As for today, yes I agree the Aussies should have taken their innings deeper into the day ensuring the ball was newer under lights. I think the carrot of getting a quick 30 runs and putting England out of the picture was what drove them to some very loose shots.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Seriously though. Anyone know what Tim Paine said, and/or what Matt Prior was talking about?

Piers Moron will probably tell us once his mate Kev tells him.

 

[Gnske]

Nah, must have been that inflammatory that it can't be brought up in public, the subject matter that is.

That or Matt Prior is full of it, the man says sledging is ineffective but apparently not as effective as throwing your bat through a window.

Regardless, Paine is clearly doing exactly what Steve Smith wants in a wicketkeeper, well done to him

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Nah, must have been that inflammatory that it can't be brought up in public, the subject matter that is.

Why can't it be brought up?

If I was England after the game I'd announce what it was and let the world decide if Paine is a **** or not.

 

[Gnske]

Why can't it be brought up?

If I was England after the game I'd announce what it was and let the world decide if Paine is a **** or not.

Well, sportspeople do have some private matters.

 

[Furball]

Seriously though. Anyone know what Tim Paine said, and/or what Matt Prior was talking about?

I assume it's just Tim Paine having the nerve to sledge anyone.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Well, sportspeople do have some private matters.

Clearly not with Bairstow last test.

If the crims can bleat about stuff then why can't we do exactly the same and out a ****.

 

[Gnske]

Clearly not with Bairstow last test.

If the crims can bleat about stuff then why can't we do exactly the same and out a ****.

Oh I wouldn't defend that at all, that was tripe journalism at its finest.

Root might explain at the end of play today yet after all.

 

[S.Kennedy]

When Paine was chirping it was when the Barmies were in full flight and rest of the Aussies were silent teapots, and I might be wrong here but I'm sure Smith went up and stopped him sledging - I might be wrong as Smith is a glorious chirper himself. It was one of those moments where the sledging seemed odd-timed and ridiculous coming from a guy with that international test career.

It was like someone trying to copy Warner at an oddly inappropriate time haha

 

[Starfighter]

Part of me wants England to win, because I am ****ing sick of watching one sided series here, and I don't see them winning any other match. Another part of me thinks it'll be a damp squib and most or all of the remaining wickets will go down in the first session. Realistically I'd give England a 5% chance of winning at most.

 

[Burgey]

It’s higher than 5% given they’ve a night watchman in who can bat and a strong lower order. Australia still heavy favourites though, with Lyon and Cummins the main threats to England.

 

[watson]

**** it, setting alarm for 3.30. I generally struggle to get back to sleep once awake so I’ll be so mad if we collapse in a heap

If Root is still there at tea then we will win IMO

That will put Root on about 150 which Is a big ask given the conditions and context of the game.

Someone else like Bairstow needs to chip in with a big 50 for England to scrape over the line I reckon.

 

[Starfighter]

It’s higher than 5% given they’ve a night watchman in who can bat and a strong lower order. Australia still heavy favourites though, with Lyon and Cummins the main threats to England.

Expect Starc to pick up at least another two, because this world sucks.

 

[stephen]

Back to the first innings declaration.

There are two things that need to be considered when declaring a first innings like this. Obviously time remaining in the test is not one of them. The thing that really needs to be weighed up is this: are the runs that we make going to outweigh the runs that will be saved by taking extra wickets under lights?

The freak rain obviously affected the decision and made it look worse than it was.

But if Australia had have had two hours under lights with the new ball and taken 4/60, dismissing Cook, Stoneman, Vince and Root. We're talking about saving probably 150 runs in total. Not only that but we give ourselves the luxury of having more time to bat in the second innings, which grinds their team down and gives our bowlers a break.

How many could we realistically expect to make with two wickets in hand? If we bat out half the remaining time in the evening and make say 50-60 runs and got England 2-30 at the end of the night with Root and Cook still at the crease for the next day, we've effectively cost ourselves 100 runs and given ourselves less time to bat in the second innings.

When you look at it from that perspective, the declaration was a good decision that was unfortunately made to look bad by a freak weather occurrence.

The decision to bat again was designed to make runs as early in the match as possible to put the game out of England's reach. Batting on day 5 at the Adelaide Oval has always been difficult, even before the d/n test came along. We were probably 50 runs short of entirely batting England out of the game. Jimmy Anderson had an uncharacteristically great performance away from home and I think it's unreasonable to have expected the ball to misbehave as much as it did (Broad was swinging/seaming it a mile too but was bowling a terrible line and length).

We still should win this but Australia's biggest mistake was not the declaration or not enforcing the follow on. Australia's biggest mistake was bowling rubbish to the tail when we had England 7/140. This let the tail being the deficit down to just over 200, which let England give themselves a shot by bowling out of their skin and dismissing us for 130 odd (which was realistically the most runs that they could let us have if they were to be a shot at winning).

Calling Smith's decisions bad fails to look at the context of those decisions and that the real issue is with our batting lineup crumbling in the second innings.