*Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval

[Ausage]

1. The total exposure of North

I don't see how he was shown to be any more rubbish this test than he was in the last few tests.

"Surely" his time is up now though. I agree that's a positive, but I don't think it stems from this match particularly.

 

[Spark]

Nah, he was only 99% exposed before, to everyone but the selectors. Word is - from robelinda who has inside sources IIRC - that he's gone now.

 

[pskov]

It's not about age, it's about test match experience. Most of our 28-34 blokes don't have much anyway apart from the ones that are already there.

Exactly. Stuart Broad is 24 and has played 34 tests, Anderson has played 54 tests but is still only 28. Finn is only 21 and this match was his 10th test, whilst 31 year old Ryan Harris was playing his third match. By sticking with the legends until they decided to go on their own volition rather than being pushed (and I don't necessarily blame the selectors for that) Australia has skipped a generation of players.

 

[howardj]

I don't see how he was shown to be any more rubbish this test than he was in the last few tests.

"Surely" his time is up now though. I agree that's a positive, but I don't think it stems from this match particularly.

Yes, but we lost an Ashes test.

Re Hughes in 2009, watch them react savagely to a failing bat in an Ashes series that's going south (pardon the pun)

 

[Spark]

Can only see two positives for Australia from this match.

1. The total exposure of North
2. The unearthing of Harris

That is all.

Clarke's second knock is a positive.

Hussey's knocks are also a positive, showed that he is actually back in form and Brisbane wasn't just another flash in the pan.

 

[Spark]

Exactly. Stuart Broad is 24 and has played 34 tests, Anderson has played 54 tests but is still only 28. Finn is only 21 and this match was his 10th test, whilst 31 year old Ryan Harris was playing his third match. By sticking with the legends until they decided to go on their own volition rather than being pushed (and I don't necessarily blame the selectors for that) Australia has skipped a generation of players.

They deserve some blame. As I said between 2004-8, when our team had its final glory years, they had multiple separate chances to blood really young players. Only once did they do it.

And now it'll only be when we're losing as much, if not more, than we win that they'll do it.

I'm amazed that we will have one player - ONE - that knows what it is like to play alongside McGrath and Warne. I mean, wtf.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yes but didn't most of these guys average around 50 after several seasons at FC level and not just 2?

Would give a clear indication into their ability if they did tbh.

How would you explain S.Waugh, McGrath, Warne, etc then?

 

[Spark]

What we need to be asking ATM is looking around and seeing "who can we see here who looks like he could play 80-120 tests?". Not necessarily "who can average 55 with the bat or 25 with the ball", but that's more important IMO.

 

[Howe_zat]

They deserve some blame. As I said between 2004-8, when our team had its final glory years, they had multiple separate chances to blood really young players. Only once did they do it.

And now it'll only be when we're losing as much, if not more, than we win that they'll do it.

I'm amazed that we will have one player - ONE - that knows what it is like to play alongside McGrath and Warne. I mean, wtf.

I count Ponting, Clarke, Hussey and Katich. Watson in one-day cricket too.

 

[Spark]

Future tense. I'm talking about one or two years from now. I suppose Watson "counts" if two tests every two years counts...

 

[Son Of Coco]

Can't see Poontang going till after we have won the series as he will cling to the hope he can turn it round. Just can't see how Australia can win 2 of the last 3 tests when they have only taken 16 wickets in 2 games. How the hell are they going to get 20 in a match when England have so many players in form and they are not under pressure now and can bat for as long as they like without having to force the issue.

Well, the actual settler will be how England bat on a wicket that's doing a bit (which they will surely have to at some stage) and how Australia bowl in the same situation.

The last two England innings have been on roads against guys bowling quite poorly for the most part. They've made the most of it, and that reflects the current standings of the series.

Australia will have to lift their bowling efforts though to take advantage of any situation where they might get a chance to roll England over cheaply. As the 1st innings in Brisbane showed, a little bit in the wicket and even just one to two bowlers hitting the right lines and things can get difficult.

If they do manage to bowl England out cheaply, then they have to actually bat well.

I think you have to look at the conditions up to this point when assessing batting performances. England are not as far ahead in the batting stakes as 2 big innings on flat tracks suggest. But are miles ahead in the bowling department at the moment.

Suggesting they're impossible to get out based on the last two innings is a little like suggesting everyone was wrong to suggest Swann would struggle a bit in Oz based on him just taking 5 in the second innings in Adelaide on a wicket everyone basically agreed he should go well on the last 2 days.

Australia have to lift dramatically to turn it around though.

 

[Shri]

Good win England. Was a great test match this.

 

[Prince EWS]

They deserve some blame. As I said between 2004-8, when our team had its final glory years, they had multiple separate chances to blood really young players. Only once did they do it.

Nah, don't agree at all. Selection really shouldn't be that hard - you should pick your best team for each match. This sort of age-progression thinking you're advocating is exactly why we've seen North in the team for so long - he's there to act as the experienced head in his 30s when Ponting, Hussey and Katich go. If they didn't try to get too funky with it and pick players based on how old they'll be when others retire I seriously think he'd have been gone long ago.

As I said before, the problem Australia are experiencing (with the batting at least) is that a whole sub-generation of batsmen failed to kick on as expected. If you have a look at the 25-31 age rage for batting contenders, you've got Clarke and Watson (playing), and then a whole host of former prodigies who have fallen away for one reason or another. Marsh, Cosgrove, Bailey, Pomersbach, Ferguson, Voges, Cowan etc have not have the success at First Class level that their predecessors did, so Australia are trying to build a team of players outside their prime. Inexperience and terminal decline - a great mix. The serious contenders - Hughes, Dave Hussey, Khawaja, Smith - are all out of this range. No amount of "blooding" (a word I really hate as it always implies picking someone for the case of youth) mediocre young players would've changed that.

 

[pasag]

Time to bring in Chris Judd.

 

[Spikey]

jimmy bartel can hold a bat too

 

[howardj]

Ablett's beach cricket form has been sound from all reports.

 

[morgieb]

Deleidio holds a U-17's partnership record for Victoria. With Jack McNamara of all people.

 

[Ausage]

Time to bring in Chris Judd.

He'll get the ball to do a bit at least.

 

[alternative]

Why is everyone complaining about the Batsmen alone?

Can't expect to win the game if the bowlers can't pick up 20 wickets.

 

[outbreak]

PEWS to be fair Cosgroves performing pretty decently, it's just that CA don't want to set a bad example by picking an overweight player. I want to see Copeland get a chance next year.