*Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval

[zaremba]

Weather forecast via cricinfo has bright sunshine and a zero percentage of rain today. I imagine Nasser would bowl. I think I might bat.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Final words before the Test - I don't have a good feeling about the batting and think we could see a pretty bad collapse that sees us going 0-1 to Perth. Hope I'm wrong.

I'll take that.

Being honest i am wondering if we will do same after the stupid 517-1.

 

[vcs]

Whoever takes the lead in the series will win the Ashes TBH.. I think that's a fairly safe bet. Obviously it's more important for Australia as England only need a drawn series.

 

[GIMH]

Posted this in the Ashes HQ thread but for anyone interested, here are my objective thoughts ahead of the second test, specifically on Johnson's removal from the side.

Cricket Web - Ashes 2010-2011 HQ: Johnson's Axing Boosts England

 

[Evilhoopler]

IMO thank God Johnson's gone, he has done nothing since SA a couple of years back. And while there axing players, why not get rid of Marcus North? Bring Usman Khawaja in or Callum Ferguson. They'd be making more runs than North is at the moment.

 

[Uppercut]

Posted this in the Ashes HQ thread but for anyone interested, here are my objective thoughts ahead of the second test, specifically on Johnson's removal from the side.

Cricket Web - Ashes 2010-2011 HQ: Johnson's Axing Boosts England

Nice. It's funny that you compare him to Harmison but still think he should (from the perspective of the Aussies) be picked, when I mentioned the other day that you were correct in comparing him to Harmy I was implying that he should be nowhere near the team. But then, I was never a Harmison backer .

But what Johnson can bring to the side is only half of the equation, and gets much more attention than the other half. Broadly speaking, England's various temporary replacements for Harmison weren't anywhere near the quality of Harris and Bollinger. I'd be happy to take a chance on Johnson if his potential replacements were Sajid Mahmood and Liam Plunkett, but Bolly and Harris are good bowlers, much more consistent than Midge and still every inch capable of bowling decisive spells. As I said before, it would be a travesty for Australia to have an off-colour Johnson bowling shoulder-high wides down the leg side when such quality bowlers were sat on the bench.

 

[Howe_zat]

That's a great post Martyn. I'm pretty pleased to see the back of him tbh.

There are rumours on the Twittersphere that Shahzad has been called in today...

 

[GIMH]

Nice. It's funny that you compare him to Harmison but still think he should (from the perspective of the Aussies) be picked, when I mentioned the other day that you were correct in comparing him to Harmy I was implying that he should be nowhere near the team. But then, I was never a Harmison backer .

But what Johnson can bring to the side is only half of the equation, and gets much more attention than the other half. Broadly speaking, England's various temporary replacements for Harmison weren't anywhere near the quality of Harris and Bollinger. I'd be happy to take a chance on Johnson if his potential replacements were Sajid Mahmood and Liam Plunkett, but Bolly and Harris are good bowlers, much more consistent than Midge and still every inch capable of bowling decisive spells. As I said before, it would be a travesty for Australia to have an off-colour Johnson bowling shoulder-high wides down the leg side when such quality bowlers were sat on the bench.

TBF, it's not necessarily that I think they should be picking Johnson, but that they should have made their mind up prior to the series as to what they wanted to do. I think they are sending good signals to England, from my POV.

Point definitely taken about Harris and Bollinger but let's not forget Harmison was also picked ahead of Sidebottom & Onions last year.

 

[howardj]

The weather is set fair, gentlemen.

 

[Woodster]

Evening all (or morning). Great time again, the hours directly leading upto another Ashes Test. Speculation surrounding the sides, although will be staggered, but not necessarily disappointed, if England do opt to make a change.

Think the Aussies will be a stronger proposition with Doug or Rhino in the side, or both. Build-up on Sky starts in an hour, nice cool beer chilling in the fridge, off work till next week. Happy Days!

Get that toss won Straussy!

 

[Uppercut]

TBF, it's not necessarily that I think they should be picking Johnson, but that they should have made their mind up prior to the series as to what they wanted to do. I think they are sending good signals to England, from my POV.

Point definitely taken about Harris and Bollinger but let's not forget Harmison was also picked ahead of Sidebottom & Onions last year.

I know. Part of what made that such a bad decision was the fact that Onions had been bowling so well all summer. And from memory I think the selectors were in really, really small minority in backing Harmy by that stage. He'd just been absolutely taken apart on a seamers' wicket at Headingley.

I definitely see what you mean about the signals it sends to England but for mine that's outweighed by the upgrade in quality. In any case, I really expect this test to be a draw. Both attacks are quite notably weaker on flat pitches, and both batting lineups are notably stronger. The groundsman says it's a "traditional Adelaide wicket" and last year the pitch slowed really badly in the last couple of days so the game shouldn't be too difficult to close out for whichever side is under pressure towards the end of the match. For that reason alone it's probably a good time for Australia to make changes to their bowling attack.

 

[Woodster]

Posted this in the Ashes HQ thread but for anyone interested, here are my objective thoughts ahead of the second test, specifically on Johnson's removal from the side.

Cricket Web - Ashes 2010-2011 HQ: Johnson's Axing Boosts England

Yes good read mate, enjoyed that. I agree with the Harmy comparison and the feelings I had when Harmy was in or out of the side. There was definitely big frustrations with him when he wasn't firing and bowling at around 82-85mph, but I certainly was convinced of persevering with him because surely he'll get it right soon, it may be the second innings when it all clicks for him. Just wait for that one delivery to get it all started, a rearing back of a length delivery touching 90mph, but it was probably all too infrequent.

Johnson is similar, but I can view his situation much clearer without any bias. At Brisbane I felt he possessed very little threat, he doesn't do anything with the ball on a flat track and he wasn't that quick either. He can be very good, but invariably he will be largely frustrating. It does say a lot about Australia's current selectorial mindset - they haven't a clue what their best attack is.

 

[GIMH]

Didn't think Harmison was that bat at Headingley. I was there on day one and although I was, um, a bit hazy by the time we bowled, I remember Harmison bowling a good spell first up though, and being robbed by that cheating metrosexual **** Clarke's refusal to walk at the end of the day (think that was Harmy bowling).

Didn't do enough to stay in ahead of Onions though, and tbf I'd have picked Sidey ahead of Harmy in the first place.

I also went absolutely mental when Harmy came out to bat before Anderson. Like crazy mental.

At the end of the day, woman behind me said, "you really do love Jimmy Anderson don't you?"

Jimmeh

 

[vic_orthdox]

Panesar wasn't in good form - as I recall he had done bugger all in the warm-up game(s). Although tbf Giles had played even less than him.

The problem with Monty is that he's a total and utter liability both in the field and with the bat. It's not just that that kind of player doesn't contribute in those areas, it's that he actively drags the whole team down. Giles is pretty much the opposite, puts in a good effort in the field and is gusty with the bat. And these things can be quite important somewhere like the Gabba where the whole team is going to come under enormous pressure from the crowd and opposition. Now, if Monty had genuinely been a key bowler, you might accept his faults (I'd have looked to play him at Sydney, for instance). But he wasn't. He had no form, and he wasn't going to do much beyond containment at the Gabba. And when it comes to containing, Giles was as good a bet as him.

Anyhow I'm wittering now, and I accept that I may well be talking crap (I usually do), but there it is.

Think that you're overplaying the form thing a bit, it's not like there was a heap of warm-up games; from memory Giles and Monty got one match each.

Monty had done well in Giles' absence in the English summer, and deserved incumbency. England backed in a bowler who had been "just a bowler" in his Test career, and played him on the back of basically nil cricket, when the man who had been in his place had outperformed him with the ball.

 

[Tom 1972]

500plus for 1 is a shocking bowling performance any way you look at it, but Tubby Taylor made a good point the other day on the radio.

At tea time on day 3 in Brisbane, only one side could win the Test match and that was Australia. Sure, England completely dominated the following 5 (count em 5) sessions but one has to ask the question as to whether England's attack looks like taking 20 wickets (let's make it 18 wickets with Marcus North in our side).

I'd suggest not. Notwithstanding that we clearly haven't seen the best of Swann on this tour.

Quite possibly the key to winning in Adelaide is more around who wins the toss and bats first. If Australia bats first, we have to declare well before tea on day 2 and try to go along a a decent clip with say 450-500 in the board. I think that England will be able to bat for 220-240 overs so the Aussies will need to bat aggressively to have sufficient time for a result.

The thing that worries me most is that England's scoring rate was quite a bit faster than Australia's at the Gabba.

E: 3.39 versus A: 3.18. The delta is even more if you take out the 4th innings which was essentially junk time.

Australian teams that score quickly can set more aggressive fields and with some disciplined bowling (see ya Mitch, hopefully see ya Hilfy), apply more pressure, bowl in partnerships etc, because you can't rely on the freakish hattrick to happen again.

Anyway, as much as I will be sick to my stomach if we can't win back the Ashes, it makes fascinating viewing.

 

[Evilhoopler]

500plus for 1 is a shocking bowling performance any way you look at it, but Tubby Taylor made a good point the other day on the radio.

At tea time on day 3 in Brisbane, only one side could win the Test match and that was Australia. Sure, England completely dominated the following 5 (count em 5) sessions but one has to ask the question as to whether England's attack looks like taking 20 wickets (let's make it 18 wickets with Marcus North in our side).

I'd suggest not. Notwithstanding that we clearly haven't seen the best of Swann on this tour.

Quite possibly the key to winning in Adelaide is more around who wins the toss and bats first. If Australia bats first, we have to declare well before tea on day 2 and try to go along a a decent clip with say 450-500 in the board. I think that England will be able to bat for 220-240 overs so the Aussies will need to bat aggressively to have sufficient time for a result.

The thing that worries me most is that England's scoring rate was quite a bit faster than Australia's at the Gabba.

E: 3.39 versus A: 3.18. The delta is even more if you take out the 4th innings which was essentially junk time.

Australian teams that score quickly can set more aggressive fields and with some disciplined bowling (see ya Mitch, hopefully see ya Hilfy), apply more pressure, bowl in partnerships etc, because you can't rely on the freakish hattrick to happen again.

Anyway, as much as I will be sick to my stomach if we can't win back the Ashes, it makes fascinating viewing.

I couldn't agree with you more

 

[zaremba]

Think that you're overplaying the form thing a bit, it's not like there was a heap of warm-up games; from memory Giles and Monty got one match each.

Monty had done well in Giles' absence in the English summer, and deserved incumbency. England backed in a bowler who had been "just a bowler" in his Test career, and played him on the back of basically nil cricket, when the man who had been in his place had outperformed him with the ball.

I take your point about the warm-up matches (and acknowledged it in my previous post). But Giles was never seen as "just a bowler". His ability at no 8 was pretty important for us, not least his fifty at the Oval the year before with the deciding Test still undecided, and he used to field competently at gully whereas Monty's specialist fielding position was "hidden".

Anyhow my view is that it was perfectly reasonable to select Giles ahead of Monty, even though it would also have been reasonable to select Monty ahead of Giles.

 

[howardj]

500plus for 1 is a shocking bowling performance any way you look at it, but Tubby Taylor made a good point the other day on the radio.

At tea time on day 3 in Brisbane, only one side could win the Test match and that was Australia. Sure, England completely dominated the following 5 (count em 5) sessions but one has to ask the question as to whether England's attack looks like taking 20 wickets (let's make it 18 wickets with Marcus North in our side).

.

I agree very much Tom. It's hardly panic stations. At the business end of the game (the 1st innings when the game is really set up) we clearly bossed that part of the game. Yes, we struggled big time with our bowling in the 2nd innings, but overall we never looked like losing certainly we can take many positives.

That said, I do think it's best to still be in a constant state of alertness, and especially in such a condensed series be willing to address weaknesses as and when they arise. To that end, I think it's good that the selectors have acted and omitted a clearly out of sorts Johnson, and hopefully Harris and Bollinger will both play. It's just a shame they haven't acted in the case of North.

 

[superkingdave]

Damn thought this test started at half 11 for some reason

 

[GotSpin]

Posted this in the Ashes HQ thread but for anyone interested, here are my objective thoughts ahead of the second test, specifically on Johnson's removal from the side.

Cricket Web - Ashes 2010-2011 HQ: Johnson's Axing Boosts England

Objective thoughts?