The Lemon Fool

But for the want of a good wicket keeper England would have won the first test. However, still a loss, following from the euphoria about the way England play what can we expect for the rest of the season.

Their top three bats are better than ours.
The spinner is far better--even if England had chosen to play one.
The wkeeper is orders of magnitude better
Australian fast bowlers are quicker and fitter than ours.
The rest of the team--not much to choose.
Stokes not fully fit?

How do we expect the following tests to result.

dubre wrote:But for the want of a good wicket keeper England would have won the first test. However, still a loss, following from the euphoria about the way England play what can we expect for the rest of the season.

Their top three bats are better than ours.
The spinner is far better--even if England had chosen to play one.
The wkeeper is orders of magnitude better
Australian fast bowlers are quicker and fitter than ours.
The rest of the team--not much to choose.
Stokes not fully fit?

How do we expect the following tests to result.

Hard to see England getting back, for the reasons you state. If the wickets suit Jimmy rather than raw pace that might help but even then I
wouldn't bet against them. Yep on paper the Aussies have it. But it ain't played on paper, England could punch way above their weight, Australia might implode. Maybe Smith's confidence has been badly shaken.

So I make Aus favourites but this England squad might make it close. Test cricket. It's the best.

I cannot understand the dropping of Foakes. Kept superbly and scored vital runs
Sure Bairstow had a cracking series then fell over.
As my old Dad would say 'repeatedly' form is temporary, class is permanent
Expect Bairstow to score a quickfire 30 as of old, then get out and continue to miss stumpings and half chances. Having a great keeper also encourages the bowlers.

Hi All.

Working through the OP's analysis ...

"Their top three bats are better than ours": Not sure if this is intended positionally in the order, or rating. I presume the former, otherwise Root would appear. Assuming so, I would say four of five are better - Root appears somewhere in that top five, maybe at the top. He will do OK unless the pitches become fast and bouncy - he tends to get outside as opposed to inside the line to rib-ticklers and the like (go back and look at how he played, or didn't play, Johnson). Conversely, low and true pitches such as Edgbaston would suit him.

"Their spinner is far better--even if England had chosen to play one": Hard to argue with this.

"Their wicket-keeper is orders of magnitude better": I didn't notice England selecting one?

"Australian fast bowlers are quicker and fitter than ours": Certainly quicker, not 100% sure about fitter - Hazlewood coming back from injury and Tongue in the England squad instead of Wood (probably to do with youth/fitness, at least in part). Anderson (despite me thinking he's over-rated) and Broad seem pretty fit, to their credit.

"The rest of the team--not much to choose": Not too many left not compared! The "other" opener (I think Khawaja is self-explanatory). Warner did OK'ish in the first innings at Edgbaston, but I think Australia would be better off dropping him - don't think they will (yet) though. I don't know enough about Duckett. Crawley will be fine as long as the ball doesn't move around - but I'm not sure that's going to be the case at Lords - will England still ask for the preparation of a Bazball track when intending to play four seamers? My guess is that Lords will have at least some green on top.

"Stokes not fully fit?": Stokes vs Cameron? Despite Cameron's potential, fully fit, you'd prefer Stokes. But he's not.

I would only add that with Board probably in at 8, 4 No 11's

Regards, Newroad

Cricket not played on paper.

Even after you compare them man for man, all it takes is for one mad session with the ball (Broad?), or one of England's batsmen to come off, and the game can be taken away from the opposition. I can understand picking Bairstow, but for goodness sake pick him as an opener and then pick the best gloves as well.

What I think I struggle with, certainly in the first test, is that there doesn't seem to be even the consideration in a tight game that it's worth trying not to lose the game. I'd have been tempted not to have declared, and batted for another hour (Root looked very good) and just tried to move the loss needle further away. First game of the Ashes, don't lose!

A good series in prospect, Australia certainly have the edge on paper, but these England players have got some performances in them I'm sure. England don't have a great record at Lords, imv they should be trying to not lose the 2nd test.

Australia 173 - 2 after being put in

Bizarre day. Aus use village cricket tactics and English batsmaen happily take the bait. Joe Root of all people . I think Bazball has clouded their thinking.
Whatever the game could go ither way. It all depends on Stokes and Brook a nice 200 from them tomorrow but tone down the bazball PLEASE!

I was there, LeoTheBear.

First two sessions clearly England's, last to Australia (but less strongly). England's day.

I would say marginal advantage Australia EXCEPT that Lyon is injured (calf) and unlikely to play in the rest of the test (and maybe part of the series). Hence that swings the dial the other way.

Regards, Newroad

Newroad wrote:I was there, LeoTheBear.

First two sessions clearly England's, last to Australia (but less strongly). England's day.

I would say marginal advantage Australia EXCEPT that Lyon is injured (calf) and unlikely to play in the rest of the test (and maybe part of the series). Hence that swings the dial the other way.

Regards, Newroad

Greetings Newroad,
What was the crowds reaction to the English batsman playing at the short stuff?
Leo

Hi Leo.

Sorry, tried to post earlier but the site became non-responsive.

The crowd's reaction was fairly ill-informed and along partisan lines, as you might expect - groans when it went well, cheers when not. I predicted the mode of Root's dismissal (see my earlier comments on this thread) - they actually got him twice. I was surprised they continued the short pitched approach to Duckett - but even more surprised that he fell for it.

Just saw the 7th wicket fall on TV ...

Regards, Newroad

From what I've seen so far, it's looking the like the Aussies have a bit to much firepower for this England team. They always have at least one batsman
who'll score well. Their bowlers also have the edge (just). They also edge it in the field.

In this test I really feel Root let his side down and Stokes seems to have lost that magic his batting had. Englands chances are now slim.

Looks like 0-2.

Good grief! From Bazball to shortball. England take a leaf out of the Aussie book and bowl short throughout the Aus 2nd innings. Tedious but effective.

Not too difficult to guess how Aussie's bowlers will respond.

Not a good turn of events.

I can see a bouncer ruling being introduced if this persists.

Oh dear England.

Stokes gets his mojo back! Sadly not quite enough to win. Had Bairstow not been "stumped" who knows, he was looking determined and confident. Fantastic final day.

In hindsight had England not thrown away a superb opportunity in their first innings things may have been different. A proper contribution from Root in both innings would have been significant.

Hi Leo.

If Starc had not "dropped" Duckett, who knows indeed What is fairly certain is that having been on the wrong side of a "letter of the law" interpretation the previous day, the Australians were far less likely to call for the decision to be reversed when the boot was on the other foot.

Stokes' reaction (to the Bairstow dismissal and/or Broad being hit) reminds me a little of the German reaction to a disallowed goal against Australia in (I think) the 2012 Olympic Hockey semi-final. It seemed to simply annoy them and they went on defeat Australia 4-2.

I wouldn't rely on Root, by the way (see my earlier comments re rib-ticklers) against decent pace bowling such as the Australians are capable of. Out "twice" in the first innings to the short ball (one was a no-ball) forcing himself inside the line but uncomfortable, then out in the second innings to his more normal (but poor) approach of getting outside the line and popping one to first slip. And it's not like it was fast, bouncy wicket!

Certainly an exciting text match of sorts, but not a great one IMO.

Regards, Newroad