*Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval

[Spikey]

reading the posts i missed

















I really enjoyed this sequence of posts

having now seen it, I have to agree with users benchmark00, Riggins, Maximas, adub and andyc

 

[91Jmay]

Rogers probably got a better delivery than Smith

A long hop that spins a bit isn't better than a ball pitching middle and leg and turning away fractionally.

 

[Maximas]

A long hop that spins a bit isn't better than a ball pitching middle and leg and turning away fractionally.

I had another look at the replays, and from what I'm seeing the length of the two balls was actually quite similar, I don't think you're doing the Swann ball justice but whatever

 

[91Jmay]

Just looked really wide to me, and Rogers didn't move his feet at all. That said, don't think this pitch is the road isn't being made out to be. Fact that two spinners can plug away at under 3 an over on it against some destructive players of spin on Day 1 suggests that anything around 350 is going to be a good score.

 

[Spark]

Yeah both Swann and Rogers strongly suggested that 350 was about par, as this deck was playing like a day 3 deck.

 

[Tangles]

George got 50? Wow he's a lock in for the next series now. Given all his leadership experience of course.

Clarke, Rad and the bowlers are more than capable of pushing this to 400+. I didn't see the dropped catches. How bad were they?

 

[Maximas]

Yeah both Swann and Rogers strongly suggested that 350 was about par, as this deck was playing like a day 3 deck.

But will it have anything for the pacers? Maybe some reverse swing because it's so dry?

 

[Prince EWS]

George got 50? Wow he's a lock in for the next series now. Given all his leadership experience of course.

Clarke, Rad and the bowlers are more than capable of pushing this to 400+. I didn't seevyhevdropoed catches. How bad were they?

Ahh, the old "pressing V instead of space on the phone" issue. Happens to me so often.

 

[Tangles]

And my phone isn't smart enuf to adapt. Lets not mention that I haven't adapted.

 

[Prince EWS]

And my phone isn't smart enuf to adapt. Lets not mention that I haven't adapted.

My phone adapts as long as there aren't too many other typos in there to make it not realise they're separate words. "yhe" and "dropoed" doing you over there.

 

[Spark]

But will it have anything for the pacers? Maybe some reverse swing because it's so dry?

A little reverse, but it comes back to the point I made last week - a score of 350 will take ages for England to overhaul (and remember that England need a decent lead!), especially on a really slow deck like this, and discipline has a wicket-taking quality of its own. I'm not really surprised that so many of the dismissals looked so ****ing stupid - and they really were ****ing stupid and needless - because that's what happens on pitches like these.

 

[mintykip]

I only got to see up until Stokes' first spell before I had to go to work. Looked pretty decent up until that last over, decent pace and fairly accurate. How did he go in his following spells?

 

[Spark]

But like, let's look at a scenario: Australia bat to lunch tomorrow, get 350-370. England, if they continue to bat like they do against our bowlers and there's no reason to suspect otherwise, will take around four sessions to reach scoreboard parity. It'd probably take them closer to five sessions to reach game parity.

Possible? Oh, absolutely. But it's very much on the limits of what you could reasonably expect. We bat to tea tomorrow, get 420-450 and England simply have to bat too many overs to get a good first innings lead.

 

[Prince EWS]

But like, let's look at a scenario: Australia bat to lunch tomorrow, get 350-370. England, if they continue to bat like they do against our bowlers and there's no reason to suspect otherwise, will take around four sessions to reach scoreboard parity. It'd probably take them closer to five sessions to reach game parity.

Possible? Oh, absolutely. But it's very much on the limits of what you could reasonably expect. We bat to tea tomorrow, get 420-450 and England simply have to bat too many overs to get a good first innings lead.

England's chance of winning this one lies in rolling Australia for a very cheap second innings total. And lets face it, that's never beyond the realms of possibility.

 

[Spark]

England's chance of winning this one lies in rolling Australia for a very cheap second innings total. And lets face it, that's never beyond the realms of possibility.

True. But I'm saying they're going to have to bat for a ****load of time for even that to work if we push it up beyond 400. I'm certainly not saying that England can't win in that scenario (draw is more likely though) but I'm just explaining why 350 is actually not that far from a par score, even if it's short of where people might like it to be.

People might complain that this is manifestly unfair, that England can bowl really quite well with only one really bad missed chance and we can bat really quite wastefully and still be in a position to really control the game with one good session, but that's winning the toss on a ****ty slow deck for you.

 

[Prince EWS]

True. But I'm saying they're going to have to bat for a ****load of time for even that to work if we push it up beyond 400. I'm certainly not saying that England can't win in that scenario (draw is more likely though) but I'm just explaining why 350 is actually not that far from a par score, even if it's short of where people might like it to be.

People tend to have pretty different definitions of "par score" in my experience so I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole.

 

[Spark]

People tend to have pretty different definitions of "par score" in my experience so I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole.

Okay I should clarify - the minimum score where Australia can begin to feel confident that they are either even or ahead in the game.

 

[jackbyrne91]

The wicket has probably already decided the result of the game.

Can't see us scoring at any more than 2.5 an over on this deck. Let's say we bowled Australia out for 350 by lunch tomorrow.

For us to be in with a chance of a win we would need about 500 and then to bowl Aus out for 200ish before knocking off the runs

It's going to take us 170-200 overs to score 500, with a bit of rain thrown in (say we lose 1-2 sessions) there is no time in the game to get a result.

 

[ajdude]

hahahah just saw rogers' presser, lost it at "i have absolutely no idea what you're talking about"

 

[wpdavid]

The wicket has probably already decided the result of the game.

Can't see us scoring at any more than 2.5 an over on this deck. Let's say we bowled Australia out for 350 by lunch tomorrow.

For us to be in with a chance of a win we would need about 500 and then to bowl Aus out for 200ish before knocking off the runs

It's going to take us 170-200 overs to score 500, with a bit of rain thrown in (say we lose 1-2 sessions) there is no time in the game to get a result.

Sensible, but not necessarily correct. If both sides made about 350 and Aus collapsed very badly in their 2nd innings then we could have an interesting Day 5 chase.