***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[Mister Wright]

Coming in after seeing your captain failing to play a forward defensive yet again can't help with bell's confidence. I would consider putting him in at 5 after kp if the run continues, giving him a better chance of settling into an innings under hopefully less pressure.

What's the difference between him watching his captain fail or watching someone like Pietersen fail, who has shown he can more than match it with the Aussies? Changing his position in the batting order is not going to change anything.

 

[Neil Pickup]

What's the difference between him watching his captain fail or watching someone like Pietersen fail, who has shown he can more than match it with the Aussies? Changing his position in the batting order is not going to change anything.

a) Less chance of him coming in during a 's**t-hitting-fan' situation of two/three wickets going down quickly
b) More batting time for Pietersen!

 

[Mister Wright]

a) Less chance of him coming in during a 's**t-hitting-fan' situation of two/three wickets going down quickly
b) More batting time for Pietersen!

a) for starters, you can't come in at four with three wickets going quicklly...
b) why move Pietersen, he has been brilliant at 5.

 

[steds]

a) Less chance of him coming in during a 's**t-hitting-fan' situation of two/three wickets going down quickly

But it would be a bigger '**** hitting fan' situation at 5

 

[Woody_cloudofsm]

Stuart macgill will give away to many four balls for my liking but if he is going to play they should still play 3 seamers and two spinners and leave out hayden put katich up to open and bat gilly at 6 i dont see why not if lee is fit with macgrath that would be great id have kaspa alongside them as he is more adept that dizzy at first change. so a team which would read
katich
langer
ponting
marto
clarkey
gilly
warney
lee
kasper
mcgrath
macgill

But u and i know that will never happen
so it will more likely read
hayden
langer
ponting
marto
clarkey
katich
gilly
warney
lee
kasper/dizzy/macgill
Mcgrath

 

[Neil Pickup]

a) I mean the case where he gets in, then whoever was in with him is out
b) So he doesn't get stuck with the tain

Sean - bigger, but less likely. Tradeoffs

 

[Mister Wright]

a) I mean the case where he gets in, then whoever was in with him is out
b) So he doesn't get stuck with the tain

Sean - bigger, but less likely. Tradeoffs

a) in that case, what would be the difference then if he bats at 4 or 5, he is still coming in at the same situation?
b) he had done alright so far - At Lords he was the back bone of England's first and second innings' after England were in dire trouble when he came to the wicket on both occasions. During the 2nd test in the first innings he came in when England lost a few wickets in a bunch and steadied the ship with Flintoff to give England what ended up being a match deciding first innings lead.

 

[Top_Cat]

What's the difference between him watching his captain fail or watching someone like Pietersen fail, who has shown he can more than match it with the Aussies? Changing his position in the batting order is not going to change anything.

Justin Langer moved up one position to opener and it revitalised his career.

 

[Mister Wright]

Justin Langer moved up one position to opener and it revitalised his career.

There is a distinct difference between batting as an opener and batting at three. I cannot see all that much difference between batting at four or five to be quite honest. I don't think moving Bell down the order to five will make all that much difference to his performance.

Besides, Langer opened in his first test match and opening was not foreign to him.

 

[Top_Cat]

There is a distinct difference between batting as an opener and batting at three. I cannot see all that much difference between batting at four or five to be quite honest. I don't think moving Bell down the order to five will make all that much difference to his performance.

Boonie did plenty of both for Australia and Australia played Blewwy and Elliott in both positions which suggests that there isn't that much of a difference.

Besides, Langer opened in his first test match and opening was not foreign to him.

No he didn't; he batted three in his first Test at Adelaide. He opened in the Perth Test of that series, didn't do very well in a heavy loss (unlucky in the second-innings, though - caught off his shoulder) and didn't open again until 2000, 7 years later. A bit premature to say it wasn't foreign to him.

4th Test: Adelaide 1993: http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1992-93/WI_IN_AUS/WI_AUS_T4_23-26JAN1993.html

5th Test: Perth 1993 : http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1992-93/WI_IN_AUS/WI_AUS_T5_30JAN-01FEB1993.html

 

[social]

Suggests you weren't watching the game.

Just to clarify matters, 20 is not an acceptable score for a front-line batsman in test cricket.

 

[social]

I doubt he would have been saying the same thing about Kasprowicz's 20 if Australia had of won the test. I fail to see how that wouldn't have been a 'very good' 20.

Once again, you turn it into something about Kaspa.

Kaspa's 20 or whatever was the equivalent of him taking 5 wickets. He is there to bowl not rescue an impossible situation.

Bells' 20 is the equivalent of Kaspa taking 1 or 2 for 100, i.e. a failure.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Just to clarify matters, 20 is not an acceptable score for a front-line batsman in test cricket.

Plenty of fellows have found Test cricket tricky to begin with (S.Waugh?) and have come good.

Bell will come good, I'm certain of it.

Fine if you think different, but I reckon he's the dogs bo11ocks.

 

[Top_Cat]

Bells' 20 is the equivalent of Kaspa taking 1 or 2 for 100, i.e. a failure.

Strictly true but Marc wasn't saying it was an overall successful score but that during the course of that 20, he looked very capable and it points towards better scores, taking a great ball to end the innings. Some guys (like Adam Bacher) can score a Test 90 and look barely Test-class and equally, another player can score a great 40 and ooze class. It's not as simple as 20 = failure.

 

[social]

As well as anyone could. It's not as if he's been the only one to fall over.


This statement only makes sense if the ball had stayed outside leg-stump. The ball pitched outside leg-stump and spun past off-stump. Who on Earth wouldn't have played at that? Imagine the opposite scenario; a batsman is facing an off-spinner turning it sharply and gets one which pitches outside off-stump and past leg-stump, he gets a nick and is caught behind down the leg-side. Would you honestly say that he would have been able to predict it was going to spin so far and didn't need to play at it? Of course not. Give the ball the credit it deserves and give Bell the credit he deserves for even getting a touch on such a great ball. The fact you'd even question Bell on this one makes me wonder whether you've ever had to play a leggie turning it miles bowling around the wicket. It's far from easy and it's not a simple matter of just kicking the ball away or leaving it go. Yes it spun heaps and would have missed the stumps but there's no way you could let it go and be 100% it was going to spin as much as it appeared it would. We're playing on turf pitches, not matting; sometimes the ball doesn't do what it's 'supposed' to and isn't so easy to predict.



Yes but he did, in a way. He tried to pad it away and the ball beat him. It was a good ball; give it some credit for beating a really good batsman. If he used his bat, there's no guarantee he would have hit it. A ball changing direction so suddenly is damn tough to play.

1. If he was trying to pad it away, then it's poor technique to have the bat anywhere near the ball.

2. Warne, great bowler that he is, has been one of the few right handed bowlers in test match history to use an around the wicket attack as an offensive weapon against a right-handed batsman. He also bowls quickly, making it difficult in the extreme for the batsman to negate this form of attack with footwork or to play him off the pitch.

However, pitching it outside leg potentially reduces the means by which he can dismiss a batsman to bowled alone. He can be countered by judicious use of the pad. You wont score, mind you, but the likelihood of dismissal is reduced significantly.

Prodding a defensive bat at such deliveries will simply end in tears more times than not.

Anyway, it's all history now as Bell has been selected for the 3rd test. Judging by the goings on in the first 2 tests, Aus will be thinking that if they can break the opening partnership, 3 for wont be far away.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Anyway, it's all history now as Bell has been selected for the 3rd test. Judging by the goings on in the first 2 tests, Aus will be thinking that if they can break the opening partnership, 3 for wont be far away.

Yes, and England will be just as positive about your line-up whom they've done pretty well against this summer. From what I have seen, Hayden has looked far less likely to score runs than Bell, but will doubtless not be dropped.

 

[social]

Yes, and England will be just as positive about your line-up whom they've done pretty well against this summer. From what I have seen, Hayden has looked far less likely to score runs than Bell, but will doubtless not be dropped.

Partially true. Hayden's looked in good form but is mentally out of sync but major difference is that Hayden etc have shown that they are capable of scoring runs at this level.

Btw, I'd drop Hayden but dont expect it to happen.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think he's just Australian and in the Country, a bit like Mike Whitney in 1981 who had hardly played first class cricket and was just in the Country playing mainly for Gloucestershire 2nd X1.
McGrath won't be playing and if Lee is a serious doubt, you never know.

Don't get your hopes up. There's no way in hell that they'd ever pick Shane Harwood - he was almost left off the Victorian contract list, and has never played a game for Australia A. Why would they pick a guy out of club cricket when you've got blokes like Mick Lewis, Bichel, and probably others - let alone Tait who is in the squad - who are playing County Cricket.

Unless you're actually trying to be the English version of Shane Warne (the poster).

 

[Mister Wright]

Once again, you turn it into something about Kaspa.

Kaspa's 20 or whatever was the equivalent of him taking 5 wickets. He is there to bowl not rescue an impossible situation.

Bells' 20 is the equivalent of Kaspa taking 1 or 2 for 100, i.e. a failure.

It wasn't about Kaspa, it was about the fact that you said there are no 'good 20s' in test cricket, when there are! You're starting to sound like Richard.

 

[honestbharani]

You are so simplifying the issue. He got a ripper from McGrath in the first innings at Lords in the midst of one of the great Test spells of all time, was unlucky in the second dig when he played for turn that didn't happen (didn't play it all that well but until that point, every other ball just like it had ripped through to Gilchrist), got an excellent length ball from Kasper which moved away off the deck in the first innings here and a ripping leg-break from around the wicket in the second dig. For a guy who's playing in his first Ashes series, Bell has gotten a disproportionate amount of brilliant bowling so far. In between those ball, except perhaps the second innings at Lords where he and everyone else struggled with Warne, he's actually looked pretty good. When he gets a start or a bit of luck, I think he'll be a good chance for a ton.


That ball pitched just outside leg-stump and forced the stroke. He did have to play at it because he wouldn't have had any idea how far it was going to turn. Imagine if, considering his second-innings dismissal at Lords, he'd left it and been out bowled around his legs. You would have been tearing him a new one (and rightly so).

That's what makes Warne's leg-side line so difficult to play compared to other bowlers. Other spinners you can kick away or play confidently at but Warnie turns it so much, it's very difficult to determine whether it's going to spin back and hit the stumps or whether you can kick it away. Warnie also bowls at a quicker pace than traditional spinners, further complicating the decision. That was a great ball from Warnie and Bell didn't do a much wrong. Anyway, it's all too easy from the couch to berate someone for 'playing at a ball they shouldn't have' in hindsight. Until that point, he'd played the leg-side balls from Warne really well, hitting against the spin into the leg-side. That's why it took a good one to get him.

I suppose the Englishmen don't get to play much spin growing up, but I can tell you from experience that even at the level that I play in, once we spot a guy who turns the ball a lot (there are a few, problem is they are not fit enough or accurate enough or don't have variety), we instinctively know how to play them. For instance, I think Strauss having to play Warnie from around the wicket would be similar to a right hander facing someone like Murali from over the wicket. NO matter how far away from the off stump the ball pitches, you know it is going to turn miles, so you simply get in line (or try to), cover your stumps with your pads and work the ball away with the spin and the angle towards the leg side. Shouldering arms and cutting are both high risk. It is obvious Strauss hasn't played too much quality spin from those shots. Hopefully, he can learn and improve soon.


Similarly with Bell, if you know how much Warnie turns it and you watch the ball carefully, you don't need to poke out your bat to him. Everyone talks about how good Laxman and Sachin were offensively against Warnie, but one should not forget that they were awesome in defence too. I can bet that most Indian batsmen would have left that ball. Again, you simply get across your stumps when you want to defend a leg spinner bowling around the wicket, get your feet to cover your stumps and if the ball keeps turning away from your right leg, you simply shoulder arms. You don't get on the front foot and try to poke at it defensively.