Super effort.
kudos....
Super effort.
kudos....
Yes, Shaun doesn't get much love but that was a fine ton, particularly in the context of the match and series. His batting in the first test was good too.
Interesting that his Dad only averaged 33.
Looks like selectors got it right.
Looks like selectors got it right.
maybe they hired SOS! ;)
Tim Paine batted well too!
And Pat Cummins! 8)
When the quickest bowler is the uninspiring Chris Woakes and you have the third seamer bowling at 123kmh it devalues that innings to about 30 runs in value.....
Englands attack is the worst I have seen since Phil Defreitas and Derek Pringle opened the bowling.....
Lyons hooked six gave you an indication how threatening their attack was....
At least three of our batsmen got themselves out with shots that could only be described as boredom shots.
4 right arm medium fast bowlers - pretty straight up and down stuff, no variation.
Bowling in the high 120s, low 130s is a joke at Test level.... but the pitch as tricky...
Super effort.
kudos....
Yes. X2.
I was one of the knockers, but he has batted very well in both tests so far.
When the quickest bowler is the uninspiring Chris Woakes and you have the third seamer bowling at 123kmh it devalues that innings to about 30 runs in value.....
Englands attack is the worst I have seen since Phil Defreitas and Derek Pringle opened the bowling.....
Lyons hooked six gave you an indication how threatening their attack was....
They've got two bowlers who have 800 wickets between them......One of them almost single-handed bowled us out for 60.
.....whether these two are vastly overrated, and only good on doctored green tops with a duke ball is another discussion all-together :-)
They've got two bowlers who have 800 wickets between them......One of them almost single-handed bowled us out for 60.
.....whether these two are vastly overrated, and only good on doctored green tops with a duke ball is another discussion all-together :-)
Anderson is now 35....and was never quick.
Would love to see his stats in England vs stats away from England....
They've got two bowlers who have 800 wickets between them......One of them almost single-handed bowled us out for 60.
.....whether these two are vastly overrated, and only good on doctored green tops with a duke ball is another discussion all-together :-)
Fair point Mal.....but.....Anderson is barely going at 130kmh and his record in Australia is poor in fact his record outside of England is poor, no duke ball, no heavy swinging conditions then its no Anderson.
Broad I really rate, good cricketer, combative but he isnt a spearhead anymore and barely gets above 135kmh, still a wily cunning operator but he
wont be bowling teams out like he did.
Craig Overton is competitive and both him and his twin Jaime are a pair of nutters but Craig only bowls around 130kmh and even gets down to the low 120's.....no seam much in Aus and
he lacks the intimidation factor for such a giant. His brother actually bowls at 150kmh and would have been more useful....
Woakes is another Anderson, swings the ball in England but away from home is just another straight up and down sub 140kmh one day bowler who can get cant life out of dead wickets...
England produce all these 6' 6" bowler's who bowl max 135kmh.....ie Ball is another, they had some Irish giant last time who was the same........doesnt work in Australia....
David Willey the English left arm swing bowler who plays big bash for Perth is a better bowler than these blokes
The 130 kph is nothing to sneeze at;
Glenn McGrath averaged in the mid to low 130s.
Terry Aldermann rarely got over the mid to low 130s.
Max Walker and Gary Gilmore were 130s bowlers.
I'm not sure that the difference between 130 and 140 is as much influence as what you do to vary the pace or bounce. I concede that guys who can regularly exceed 150 kph are a different issue altogether, but they are exceedingly rare.
I thought Marsh's ton was good, but I've had the impression that England's plan for the day night test was a draw, they look like they have been playing for it from the 1st ball, they look flat and disinterested. Makes me think this test isn't really offering much to go by in terms of performance or form. It's was probably a tactical mistake from England, because this year the Adelaide pitch is possibly the one that suits them best.
For England in my opinion this is a pretty crappy Ashes tour to be on, too many games in too short of a period. The ICC is responsible for these stupid schedules, they seem hell bent on giving the minnows an opportunity to grow at the expense of the traditional rivals. I believe the schedule is to get thinned down in the future, I hope so, I want to see the pinnacle of cricket in Ashes tests. At the moment it feels like the tests have become second fiddle to the IPL and Big Bash.
4 for 80.
They'll be lucky to make 150.
The 130 kph is nothing to sneeze at;
Glenn McGrath averaged in the mid to low 130s.
Terry Aldermann rarely got over the mid to low 130s.
Max Walker and Gary Gilmore were 130s bowlers.
I'm not sure that the difference between 130 and 140 is as much influence as what you do to vary the pace or bounce. I concede that guys who can regularly exceed 150 kph are a different issue altogether, but they are exceedingly rare.
I thought Marsh's ton was good, but I've had the impression that England's plan for the day night test was a draw, they look like they have been playing for it from the 1st ball, they look flat and disinterested. Makes me think this test isn't really offering much to go by in terms of performance or form. It's was probably a tactical mistake from England, because this year the Adelaide pitch is possibly the one that suits them best.
For England in my opinion this is a pretty crappy Ashes tour to be on, too many games in too short of a period. The ICC is responsible for these stupid schedules, they seem hell bent on giving the minnows an opportunity to grow at the expense of the traditional rivals. I believe the schedule is to get thinned down in the future, I hope so, I want to see the pinnacle of cricket in Ashes tests. At the moment it feels like the tests have become second fiddle to the IPL and Big Bash.
145k from a bloke who is 6' 6" is where the difference is..........
Starc is no Dale Steyn for pace or swing but that height gives him bounce even off dead wickets......same with Hazelwood and Cummins...quick enough but not super quick but like the Windies greats but that extra height makes it more difficult..The Australians have figured out the short stuff worries the Poms and they are going to get pounded every innings.....125-130k bowlers cant provide that so the Poms cant retaliate.
Englands attack is rubbish IMO and their batting not much better....I feel less confident of removing Moeen Ali cheaply than their top order, thats how well they are going......
6/138. Lyon just took an all-time classic caught and bowleds.
Australia's bowling too good. Batting was very consistent all the way through. Although Marsh was the only one to go on and get 100, every Australian batsman contributed with the bat bar Bancroft, who was cruelly run out.
The 130 kph is nothing to sneeze at;
Glenn McGrath averaged in the mid to low 130s.
Terry Aldermann rarely got over the mid to low 130s.
Max Walker and Gary Gilmore were 130s bowlers.
I'm not sure that the difference between 130 and 140 is as much influence as what you do to vary the pace or bounce. I concede that guys who can regularly exceed 150 kph are a different issue altogether, but they are exceedingly rare.
I thought Marsh's ton was good, but I've had the impression that England's plan for the day night test was a draw, they look like they have been playing for it from the 1st ball, they look flat and disinterested. Makes me think this test isn't really offering much to go by in terms of performance or form. It's was probably a tactical mistake from England, because this year the Adelaide pitch is possibly the one that suits them best.
For England in my opinion this is a pretty crappy Ashes tour to be on, too many games in too short of a period. The ICC is responsible for these stupid schedules, they seem hell bent on giving the minnows an opportunity to grow at the expense of the traditional rivals. I believe the schedule is to get thinned down in the future, I hope so, I want to see the pinnacle of cricket in Ashes tests. At the moment it feels like the tests have become second fiddle to the IPL and Big Bash.
130s is dangerous as long as the bowler is very skilled.
130s is dangerous as long as the bowler is very skilled.
Anderson and Broad are real skilled but like the equally skilled McGrath have got very hittable as their pace dropped...
6/138. Lyon just took an all-time classic caught and bowleds.
Australia's bowling too good. Batting was very consistent all the way through. Although Marsh was the only one to go on and get 100, every Australian batsman contributed with the bat bar Bancroft, who was cruelly run out.
Bancroft angles his bat defending outside off stump..Poms have already figured out where to bowl to him, he wont be much chop in England if he doesnt get behind the ball better or learn to leave more..
Those Pommie "trunlders' are going through our top order like a dose of salts.... Warner and Khawaja...meh, clueless unless they're playing no namers on dead tracks.
Smith should have enforced the follow on. Bizarre decision....given the night conditions....
Maybe, but he's only got four bowlers and needs to husband them.
Losing 9 overs in last night's evening session was rotten luck... England has had a long suck on the sauce bottle w.r.t to the bowling conditions. Extending the day's play takes on more significance when its the night session.
That said, our blokes need to harden the F up and deal with tough situations... "unorthodox'" techniques have their flaws as well.
How can Smith be out to a ball that isn't hitting the stumps?
Smith should have enforced the follow on. Bizarre decision....given the night conditions....
It's a while since a follow on was enforced but Smith's timidity has allowed the Poms back into the game.
I reckon enforcing the follow on is the most over-rated decision in cricket, back-fires more often than not.
Those Pommie "trunlders' are going through our top order like a dose of salts.... Warner and Khawaja...meh, clueless unless they're playing no namers on dead tracks.
The ball is swinging, Anderson has it bending like a banana.....its like being back in England....they better enjoy it while they can, rest of the series will be played on roads...
Woakes looks like a champ out there even Smith looked rattled with the movement, only danger to Aus is this will give their bowlers confidence and some idea about where they need to bowl...
Seemed to lose our intimidation when Overton was batting with Woakes, the former is a bit of a odd looking big unit and our bowlers didnt seem that comfortable to mouth off at him....something reminds me of the Bond character " Jaws" when Overton smiles, simple but scary....
Still don't understand why Smith was given out, surely enough doubt to suggest not out?
Warner is starting to crap me no end - he needs to make runs when it counts. Too often he has been part of collapses. Both his dismissals in this game have been very, very soft. He isn't providing score board pressure ATM and he's not reliable enough in defence/shot selection to trust chucking the anchor out.
Still don't understand why Smith was given out, surely enough doubt to suggest not out?
Warner is starting to crap me no end - he needs to make runs when it counts. Too often he has been part of collapses. Both his dismissals in this game have been very, very soft. He isn't providing score board pressure ATM and he's not reliable enough in defence/shot selection to trust chucking the anchor out.
Smith....if the umpire gives it out then it only has to hit the stumps on the review, even with a faint clip....
Warner got a good one from Woakes second time around but the first one he played a poor shot......the responsible Warner isnt working, we need him to be the cavalier Warner where he goes after the bowling...
Yep, 12 from 60 balls (or whatever it was) was a poor result. 30 from 30 would have been handier - and might have knocked the ball around a bit as well. Can't believe the condition the pink ball has stayed in.
Smith....if the umpire gives it out then it only has to hit the stumps on the review, even with a faint clip....
Warner got a good one from Woakes second time around but the first one he played a poor shot......the responsible Warner isnt working, we need him to be the cavalier Warner where he goes after the bowling...
The umpiring this test has been appalling...they continue to fire out LBWs despite DRS showing the bounce taking the ball over the stumps more often than not. They haven't been able to adapt their decision making to the pitch.....mind you I've never had much of an opinion of Aleem Dar as an umpire. Why can't Australian umpires umpire home series now we've got DRS ? We're missing out on some of the best umpires in the world because of this.
The umpiring this test has been appalling...they continue to fire out LBWs despite DRS showing the bounce taking the ball over the stumps more often than not. They haven't been able to adapt their decision making to the pitch.....mind you I've never had much of an opinion of Aleem Dar as an umpire. Why can't Australian umpires umpire home series now we've got DRS ? We're missing out on some of the best umpires in the world because of this.
Agree...the old batsmen gets the benefit of the doubt theory is long gone, my issue is how accurate is that ball tracker that determines height, decisions where the ball just clips the top of the stumps
should be not out IMO...batsman should get the benefit of the doubt in that case..
Its interesting that Smith was given not out LBW when the ball was judged to be pitching outside leg when a portion of the ball was seen inline but the majority of the ball was out however a batsman can be out when only part of the ball clips the stumps in a normal review where the ball pitches inline.
The full ball should have to be inline and contacting the stumps IMO...
The umpiring this test has been appalling...they continue to fire out LBWs despite DRS showing the bounce taking the ball over the stumps more often than not. They haven't been able to adapt their decision making to the pitch.....mind you I've never had much of an opinion of Aleem Dar as an umpire. Why can't Australian umpires umpire home series now we've got DRS ? We're missing out on some of the best umpires in the world because of this.
The DRS sows seeds of doubt, which only makes the umpires worse because they lose confidence, so they make decisions that they know DRS can fix.
You can bet that within a few years they will no longer signal decisions, they will just stand there deciding whether or not something should be referred to the DRS. Eventually a referral to DRS will become a real-time vote between the two field umpires and 3rd umpire.
the umpires decisions were fine, every commentator thought those lbs were out. As I did.
Australia all out 138. ::) ::)
353 to win.... :o
It will be enough.
It will be enough.
Even a win won't excuse the failure to enforce the follow-on......
Even a win won't excuse the failure to enforce the follow-on......
I don’t think we ever enforce the follow on anymore? Does anyone?
The team that bats controls the game... unless you get rolled for 138!
Still think it will be enough... although if the poms are 0 for 150 at stumps it will be a nervous day tomorrow.
Well, they’ve been bowling Pies since the dinner break, could be over tonight at this rate....I look at Stark sometimes and he just ambles up, no effort, line all over the place and I just scratch my head... :o :o...have a crack will ya?
That ball tracking thing is BS. Root was out. he was playing back and hit on his rear pad yet the tracking says that ball was rising from the popping crease.
Didn't resemble what Lyon's ball did in the slightest.
At least Marsh and Paine were on the popping crease.....
Aussies all out of reviews in 2 overs...well done boys :D
the 2nd one was dumb as....
Ducking bats need to take a long hard look at themselves, pathetic today.
I'm a Handscombe fan but he has to go and rediscover whatever technique he had. He's a walking wicket ATM.
Even a win won't excuse the failure to enforce the follow-on......
I tend to agree FB. Not enforcing the follow on is captaincy by numbers and it's let the Poms back into a game that should have been well beyond them.
Smith is sooking now and it's not a good look for the Aussie captain.
This was the test that most favoured the Poms and we should have kept our foot firmly on their throat.
Smith is sooking now and it's not a good look for the Aussie captain.
There's a touch of Brendon Goddard about Smith - doesn't take much for the bottom lip to start quivering.
Ducking bats need to take a long hard look at themselves, pathetic today.
I'm a Handscombe fan but he has to go and rediscover whatever technique he had. He's a walking wicket ATM.
Handscombe needs dropping....back on the stumps and squared up to the bowlers makes him a LBW candidate every ball, think he might have got ahead of himself a bit.
Needs to spend less time yapping to the likes of Root, Bairstow and more time in the nets learning to play a forward defensive shot...
We a posted about whitewashes and one sided tests prior to the Brisbane result. Now it looks like the poor standards of cricket have truly become a great leveller making an unpredictable result.
Should we really be complaining?
The bowlers haven't been too bad, be it that they are inconsistent, at least they look at times to be test standard.
The batting in general seems poor, even those making some runs are like chickens scratching at the ground, the fielding has been a bit ordinary as well.
For whatever reason, the captaincy that was at best average or variable in Brisbane has become poor in Adelaide, I suppose that is poor playing performances making the captains look worse. (Note to Murphy!)
I have no issues not enforcing the follow-on. Tired bowlers don't have the same effect as fresh bowlers even at night. If England hit tired bowlers for 450 runs then we have a tricky chase. What you do is bat properly and make sure you make more than 138 even if the opposition do bowl well. Even 200 in the 2nd innings would've made the chase 416.
Criticising not enforcing the follow-on just excuses our bad batting.
We still should win, especially if we get an early wicket, but we have to be a bit better and smarter with things.
Handscombe needs dropping....back on the stumps and squared up to the bowlers makes him a LBW candidate every ball, think he might have got ahead of himself a bit.
Needs to spend less time yapping to the likes of Root, Bairstow and more time in the nets learning to play a forward defensive shot...
Exactly. He's become a smart R'se.
Needs to get back to basics and start playing cricket again.
I have no issues not enforcing the follow-on. Tired bowlers don't have the same effect as fresh bowlers even at night. If England hit tired bowlers for 450 runs then we have a tricky chase. What you do is bat properly and make sure you make more than 138 even if the opposition do bowl well. Even 200 in the 2nd innings would've made the chase 416.
Criticising not enforcing the follow-on just excuses our bad batting.
I agree, I've no problem with that it made sense and the critics are full of hindsight.
My issues with captaincy are the bizarre fields and bowler management, and a little bit about the argy bargy which should be beneath the captain. The captains should leave that stuff up to the meat heads like Warner and Broad. When captains start to participate, there is nobody left to reign it in.
The best captains are always calm and cold!
Exactly. He's become a smart R'se.
Needs to get back to basics and start playing cricket again.
Root had a good crack at him the night before. It goes two ways.
Ironic that Patty Cummins has now become our #1 quick, no doubt about it. He was trying his heart out last night & could've had another couple in that last spell with a bit of luck......Hazelwood & Starc.....just don't have what he has......they look pedestrian, and all the talk about Starcs swing......I've yet to see it against anyone but numbers 9, 10 & 11.
What a shame Pattinson is out again.....he has the mongrel that those two are sorely missing.
Ironic that Patty Cummins has now become our #1 quick, no doubt about it. He was trying his heart out last night & could've had another couple in that last spell with a bit of luck......Hazelwood & Starc.....just don't have what he has......they look pedestrian, and all the talk about Starcs swing......I've yet to see it against anyone but numbers 9, 10 & 11.
What a shame Pattinson is out again.....he has the mongrel that those two are sorely missing.
Hazelwood's a gun normally but he has been very average this series. Starc's ok but can be a touch overrated too. He doesn't swing it like Anderson. Our bowlers make not have had the same effect if we made them follow-on for that reason, especially when tired.
I have no issues not enforcing the follow-on. Tired bowlers don't have the same effect as fresh bowlers even at night. If England hit tired bowlers for 450 runs then we have a tricky chase. What you do is bat properly and make sure you make more than 138 even if the opposition do bowl well. Even 200 in the 2nd innings would've made the chase 416.
Criticising not enforcing the follow-on just excuses our bad batting.
We still should win, especially if we get an early wicket, but we have to be a bit better and smarter with things.
Like that was always going to happen with the Poms batting in those night conditions on Day 3!
Even D. Saker has now come out and said they got it wrong.... major tactical blunder, pure and simple.
Hazelwood's a gun normally but he has been very average this series. Starc's ok but can be a touch overrated too. He doesn't swing it like Anderson. Our bowlers make not have had the same effect if we made them follow-on for that reason, especially when tired.
our boys just expect it all to happen too often.
But they'll come out fired up today.
A couple of quick wickets and it's sayonara.....
And Root was out to Lyon. The ball tracking system is f...d.
He was playing right back in his crease, it hit the rear pad maybe 15cm in front of the wickets off a spin bowler at say 90km/hr (and the ball is clearly decelerating by then).
Politics at play?
The projected trajectory was blatently wrong imo.
I have no issues not enforcing the follow-on. Tired bowlers don't have the same effect as fresh bowlers even at night. If England hit tired bowlers for 450 runs then we have a tricky chase. What you do is bat properly and make sure you make more than 138 even if the opposition do bowl well. Even 200 in the 2nd innings would've made the chase 416.
Criticising not enforcing the follow-on just excuses our bad batting.
We still should win, especially if we get an early wicket, but we have to be a bit better and smarter with things.
How long would they have to have bowled for - a session under lights and then a good rest before mopping up the tail on the following day.
The idea that Smith was protecting his tired bowlers is rubbish. They would have ripped through a disconsolate team bereft of confidence and batting under lights with the ball looping around.
Poor captaincy followed by incredibly poor body language in the field.
How long would they have to have bowled for - a session under lights and then a good rest before mopping up the tail on the following day.
The idea that Smith was protecting his tired bowlers is rubbish. They would have ripped through a disconsolate team bereft of confidence and batting under lights with the ball looping around.
Poor captaincy followed by incredibly poor body language in the field.
It's not rubbish. it was close to 80 overs. How do you know how fresh they were? They would not have come out and had the same effect as the English bowlers as they weren't as fresh. You assuming they would've have just gone through them and mopped up the tail. Crap, they would not had the same effect and they could've gone on to make 450 leaving a tricky chase. Like I said, bat well and make more than 138.
BOWLING O M R W ECON WD NB
MA Starc 20.0 4 49 3 2.45 0 0
JR Hazlewood 16.0 3 56 1 3.50 0 0
PJ Cummins 16.0 3 47 2 2.93 1 0
NM Lyon 24.1 5 60 4 2.48 0 0
They had the dinner break to rest up knowing they would have one session to go hard.
Laughable.
i think the Poms had faced about 10 overs the night before before rain?
So the Aussies had bowled roughly 70 of the 90 required overs on Day 3....
Even if 30 overs were needed - 7 overs a head!!
Hazelwood's a gun normally but he has been very average this series. Starc's ok but can be a touch overrated too. He doesn't swing it like Anderson. Our bowlers make not have had the same effect if we made them follow-on for that reason, especially when tired.
Hazelwood gets more treatment as the batsman tend to pick him as the easier quick to hit out of the three.....he bowls more full and isnt as quick.
Also tends not to use the bouncer as much and as you say doesnt swing it like Anderson...
We lack a fifth bowler who can come on and do some of the monkey work stuff which also doesnt help Hazelwood who ends up doing that role....
Overall seems down on confidence too...his batting has gone to crape, and even in the field he seems slower to react...needs to get nastier with the ball....
Its all well and good to attack Smith's captaincy and his decision re the follow on but that is all covering up for the fact that the useless bastards who call themselves batsmen had us bowling again 3 hours and 150 runs before we should have been.
Smith didn't lose this test - the top 7 did.
As for the verbal rubbish, Root is a hypocritical, deadest flog and the best way to deal with that is to ignore him and not engage in any banter. As the saying goes, never get into an argument with an idiot...
I would have played Sayers in this test as I am finding the current triumvirate of quicks underwhelming. They already look tired. Hazelwood is lacking penetration and Starc needs to start taking top end wickets and serving up less trash.
England were playing for a draw, our batting has given them an opportunity to win, the decisions to follow-on or not is irrelevant. Nobody can predict what would have happened.
Just 48hrs ago everyone was calling Root a goose for bowling, by the logic that is used to criticise Smith we would have to now assume Root is a genius! All that does is cover up a crap batting display!
The all out for 150 could have come on day 3 or the last day, either way we'd be dealing England a chance in a match that should have been an Aussie win or draw but never a potential loss!
All out for 138 chasing on the last day would have been worst chase IMO... that would cause long term scars.
All out for 138 chasing on the last day would have been worst chase IMO... that would cause long term scars.
This result win or lose has already caused problems, the England bowlers are going to be chock full of confidence for the remainder of the series. If they win their batsmen will come good as well.
We basically won in Brisbane off the back of England bowling a load of rubbish, we've managed to fix that up!
Watching Australia play test cricket is like watching Carlton play AFL, the both have a unique ability to restore an otherwise crap opponent to good form!
Hazelwood gets more treatment as the batsman tend to pick him as the easier quick to hit out of the three.....he bowls more full and isnt as quick.
Also tends not to use the bouncer as much and as you say doesnt swing it like Anderson...
We lack a fifth bowler who can come on and do some of the monkey work stuff which also doesnt help Hazelwood who ends up doing that role....
Overall seems down on confidence too...his batting has gone to crape, and even in the field he seems slower to react...needs to get nastier with the ball....
Hazlewood has bowled a number of balls mid 140s and bowls the best bouncer of all of them.
Starc needs to pull his finger out. More natural talent than all of them but just lumbers in half the time.
Starc is quite possibly dumber than Mitchell Johnson
Two captains have made terrible decisions.
I love smith but that decision will haunt him forever if we lose this test.
Hopefully he made the decision, if not he should resign
Hazlewood has bowled a number of balls mid 140s and bowls the best bouncer of all of them.
Starc needs to pull his finger out. More natural talent than all of them but just lumbers in half the time.
Starc is quite possibly dumber than Mitchell Johnson
Two captains have made terrible decisions.
I love smith but that decision will haunt him forever if we lose this test.
Hopefully he made the decision, if not he should resign
I agree with most, but as much as I am a critique of Smith's captaincy I can't blame him for that decision not to enforce the follow on. 8 out of 10 captains would have immediately done the same thing, and the other two are lying.
The "Starc Condition" as some of my associates refer to it is a massive problem. The difference between "The Good Starc" and "The Other Starc" is enormous, and we see the effect it has on the bowlers at the other end. Hazlewood struggles when Starc is off because the pressure is released, when the pressure is maintained at the other end Hazlewood is possibly our best bowler, but when the batsmen start to free up Hazlewood is the easiest to get hold off.
Last night as I watched the final sessions the commentators waffled on for hours about the lack of movement, whether the ball was a good or bad one, if the temperature was too hot or too cold, if the wind was blowing too strong or from the wrong direction, how the humidity had changed, wah, wah, wah. But anyone who has played cricket could tell the ball was leaving the hands of the Aussie pacemen with the seam heavily scrambled. It was just shi1te bowling compared to the England bowlers earlier in the day, with Anderson bowling the seam left his hand like it was a Frisbee!
Don't blame the ball you spuds, get the basics right!
I agree with most, but as much as I am a critique of Smith's captaincy I can't blame him for that decision not to enforce the follow on. 8 out of 10 captains would have immediately done the same thing, and the other two are lying.
I think you have made that star up.
I have not spoken to anyone since or before that thought it was the way to go.
Dumbest thing he has done as captain and almost as dumb as Root choosing to bowl
7 for 188.
Dusted.
Thankfully.
Hazlewood has bowled a number of balls mid 140s and bowls the best bouncer of all of them.
Starc needs to pull his finger out. More natural talent than all of them but just lumbers in half the time.
Starc is quite possibly dumber than Mitchell Johnson
Two captains have made terrible decisions.
I love smith but that decision will haunt him forever if we lose this test.
Hopefully he made the decision, if not he should resign
As far as the follow-on went, bowlers are tired, injury prone, it's a 5 Tests series so you don't want to kill them. Never would've been fresh enough to do what England did. If they got 400 because our bowlers were tired then we'd have an unnecessary tricky chase. We were 215 in front so even a crape score was putting the game out of their reach, as we saw. No good killing our best assets. Me, i've always been anti- follow on anyway. I just think it's giving a sucker an even break.
Agree on Starc but reckon Cummins bowls our best bouncer but, yes, Hazelwood's a gun.
Who needed a follow-on...lol.
Smashed them!
Overnight they were able to settle themselves then come out and play great cricket.
I think you have made that star up.
I have not spoken to anyone since or before that thought it was the way to go.
Dumbest thing he has done as captain and almost as dumb as Root choosing to bowl
I've played and captained plenty of 3 and 4 day cricket, I cannot think of a captain I respect that would have enforced the follow on. Australia had made 442 on that pitch, and tired Aussie bowlers could have just as easily seen England bat through that initial night session and start the next day in warm conditions with very little movement and half the deficit lost. To enforce the follow-on you have to assume the pitch won't degrade into day 5, because you are going to be batting on it in the last day.
During the match it was clear the pitch seemed to be getting harder to bat on as each day past. Nobody has a crystal ball, you have to act on what you know has happened so far.
The critics will flip now we have won, the problem wasn't Smith's decision, it was a our crap 2nd Innings batting.
How lucky are we that we had Hazlewood, how lucky is Starc that we had Hazlewood?
I've played and captained plenty of 3 and 4 day cricket, I cannot think of a captain I respect that would have enforced the follow on. Australia had made 442 on that pitch, and tired Aussie bowlers could have just as easily seen England bat through that initial night session and start the next day in warm conditions with very little movement and half the deficit lost. To enforce the follow-on you have to assume the pitch won't degrade into day 5, because you are going to be batting on it in the last day.
During the match it was clear the pitch seemed to be getting harder to bat on as each day past. Nobody has a crystal ball, you have to act on what you know has happened so far.
The critics will flip now we have won, the problem wasn't Smith's decision, it was a our crap 2nd Innings batting.
How lucky are we that we had Hazlewood, how lucky is Starc that we had Hazlewood?
I'm scared, we agree! Haha!
I'm scared, we agree! Haha!
All the experts are now saying we need an extra bowler for Perth to take 20 wickets, it's because they know we couldn't have enforced the follow on and Smith had to give them a break as part of a five test series. If we try to take 20 wickets in Perth with 3 pace bowlers and Lyon we'll be cooked for the last two tests.
IMHO, they are hypocrites, and they didn't mention the 2nd innings collapse once. Yet all of them struck it to Handscomb who's batting is probably better suited to Perth than any other wicket in the country.
I'd bring a pure bowler into replace Lyon, as the Perth pitch looks like it's dead for spinners, and let Cummins be the kickar5e All-Rounder. But the "experts" are calling for Mitch Marsh to replace Handscomb which I think is a big mistake.
I have no idea why Holland and Ahmed knocked over WA. I'm assuming spud batting is most likely the reason because in the end the Vics couldn't bowl them out a second time. In that shield match, 5 batsmen made 500 runs, batting isn't going to be a problem if the other pitches are like that one, but bowling a team out might be!
Hazlewood has bowled a number of balls mid 140s and bowls the best bouncer of all of them.
Starc needs to pull his finger out. More natural talent than all of them but just lumbers in half the time.
Starc is quite possibly dumber than Mitchell Johnson
Two captains have made terrible decisions.
I love smith but that decision will haunt him forever if we lose this test.
Hopefully he made the decision, if not he should resign
Dont agree on the bouncer, reckon Starc bowls the best short stuff and is the more intimidating bowler, reckon Starc is just laconic in his approach.
Dumber than Mitch Johnson...probably not possible, Starc can land most of his deliveries...
Agree on the captains, probably not the two smartest going around....got a bit of sympathy for Root though as he has a poor batting lineup, maybe even the worst English team
batting lineup ever..No 3 is meant to be your best batsman but Vince averages 22 at test level and you can sort of understand why Root wouldnt be backing that lineup to make runs and think about bowling first...
Root will begging the selectors to get Stokes across from NZ...wouldnt be surprised to see another quick on the way either, maybe Overton's twin brother if his back is better..
As far as the follow-on went, bowlers are tired, injury prone, it's a 5 Tests series so you don't want to kill them. Never would've been fresh enough to do what England did. If they got 400 because our bowlers were tired then we'd have an unnecessary tricky chase. We were 215 in front so even a crape score was putting the game out of their reach, as we saw. No good killing our best assets. Me, i've always been anti- follow on anyway. I just think it's giving a sucker an even break.
Agree on Starc but reckon Cummins bowls our best bouncer but, yes, Hazelwood's a gun.
It was 21deg and they hadn't bowled a heap of overs.
Just far too good an opportunity to pass up.
It was 21deg and they hadn't bowled a heap of overs.
Just far too good an opportunity to pass up.
They had bowled enough. Innings went 76.1 overs. Not as if they were fresh.
Why would you do it and risk your bowlers? What if they are tired and all end up bowling over 30 overs. With injury-prone bowlers, not such a good idea and just increases such workloads to such bowlers in a long, 5 Test Series. Never a need to make a side follow-on, especially if there's back to back Tests (this Test was the 2nd of them so no issues). Making them follow-on is giving a sucker an even break, a chance to score 450 against tired bowlers. Then you might end up with a tricky chase possibly under lights. Why would you do it other than to have an extra day playing golf. If you're 215 in front a crape score will even put the game out of reach, as we saw. We won easily, as we were always going to do, and we have bowlers that are alot fresher.
Smith conceded that the win took the pressure off his decision not to enforce the follow on. He didn't really explain why he took his foot off the Poms' throat, perhaps because you can't explain the inexplicable. He certainly didn't seem concerned about the bowlers' workload and it doesn't seem to be an issue among the commentators.
The Poms capitulated so quickly I didn't get to see any of today's play ????
They had bowled enough. Innings went 76.1 overs. Not as if they were fresh.
Why would you do it and risk your bowlers? What if they are tired and all end up bowling over 30 overs. With injury-prone bowlers, not such a good idea and just increases such workloads to such bowlers in a long, 5 Test Series. Never a need to make a side follow-on, especially if there's back to back Tests (this Test was the 2nd of them so no issues). Making them follow-on is giving a sucker an even break, a chance to score 450 against tired bowlers. Then you might end up with a tricky chase possibly under lights. Why would you do it other than to have an extra day playing golf. If you're 215 in front a crape score will even put the game out of reach, as we saw. We won easily, as we were always going to do, and we have bowlers that are alot fresher.
Well based on those "facts" we may as well remove the follow on rule from the game.
A whopping 76 overs in 21 deg.
Oh hang on, around 10 were bowled the night before.
And they had just had a dinner break.
I think they may have managed somehow.
A new ball in those conditions may have just had them pretty fired up I would have thought
Well based on those "facts" we may as well remove the follow on rule from the game.
A whopping 76 overs in 21 deg.
Oh hang on, around 10 were bowled the night before.
And they had just had a dinner break.
I think they may have managed somehow.
A new ball in those conditions may have just had them pretty fired up I would have thought
Don't take up captaincy, as it won't be a strength.
You'd have no idea how they felt. They bowled 76 overs is pretty significant so they are not going to be that fresh. You think they a robots? What if they were a bit flat and went for 400-450, then they have a tricky chase, possibly under lights. We led by 215 so even a crap score was even going to put the game out of their reach, which happened. Then we had fresh bowlers go out and roll them for 233. Meant we won easily. Your way would be to put possibly England back in the and make us potentially chase, my way we won easily. So why the hell would you want to make them follow-on. There's absolutely no reason for it. Never a reason to make a side follow on. Barring time and weather factor you couldn't find one good reason.
Remember too these bowlers are injury prone, have to play a 5 Test series. What if a few of them had to bowl another 25, even 30 overs, that's suddenly alot in a row. You might want to smash them but others don't.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/hindsight-only-weapon-as-ashes-captains-cop-misplaced-criticism/9233744?section=sport
Don't take up captaincy, as it won't be a strength.
You'd have no idea how they felt. They bowled 76 overs is pretty significant so they are not going to be that fresh. You think they a robots? What if they were a bit flat and went for 400-450, then they have a tricky chase, possibly under lights. We led by 215 so even a crap score was even going to put the game out of their reach, which happened. Then we had fresh bowlers go out and roll them for 233. Meant we won easily. Your way would be to put possibly England back in the and make us potentially chase, my way we won easily. So why the hell would you want to make them follow-on. There's absolutely no reason for it. Never a reason to make a side follow on. Barring time and weather factor you couldn't find one good reason.
Remember too these bowlers are injury prone, have to play a 5 Test series. What if a few of them had to bowl another 25, even 30 overs, that's suddenly alot in a row. You might want to smash them but others don't.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/hindsight-only-weapon-as-ashes-captains-cop-misplaced-criticism/9233744?section=sport
Agree on being injury prone...Cummins has been very injury prone and is now a key part of the team and Starc has also had issues, cant afford to lose either and we would come back to the field
very quickly...Bird and Sayers for example dont replace those two...Poms would be all over us.
I could understand Smith wanting to look after our main weapons/advantage in this series.....
Don't take up captaincy, as it won't be a strength.
You'd have no idea how they felt. They bowled 76 overs is pretty significant so they are not going to be that fresh. You think they a robots? What if they were a bit flat and went for 400-450, then they have a tricky chase, possibly under lights. We led by 215 so even a crap score was even going to put the game out of their reach, which happened. Then we had fresh bowlers go out and roll them for 233. Meant we won easily. Your way would be to put possibly England back in the and make us potentially chase, my way we won easily. So why the hell would you want to make them follow-on. There's absolutely no reason for it. Never a reason to make a side follow on. Barring time and weather factor you couldn't find one good reason.
Remember too these bowlers are injury prone, have to play a 5 Test series. What if a few of them had to bowl another 25, even 30 overs, that's suddenly alot in a row. You might want to smash them but others don't.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/hindsight-only-weapon-as-ashes-captains-cop-misplaced-criticism/9233744?section=sport
There is never a reason to make someone follow on?
Ok genius you know more than all the greatest captains in history.
Obviously all of them are inferior to your tactical expertise
Maybe the world isn't so black and white Jim and you could open your mind just a mm or two
Perhaps Smith made the call for 'commercial' reasons? :o