Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

OK, so England plyed pretty well in Cardiff and have come away with the points. Each of the XI are therefore guaranteed their spots in this second encounter, along with OBE's next June. A few concerns for the Aussies; the form of Shane Watson, and the injury to Mitchell Starc. I guess we'll see Mitchell Marsh come in (should have played in Cardiff), and Peter Siddle. From what little I saw of the first Test, the Aussies bowled well in parts, but batted poorly. England looked good and played positively, and will have to continue doing so if they want to win back the urn.

Unsurprisingly, England have named an unchanged squad for the second test.

It'll be surprising if a side as good as Australia don't come back at Lord's. But a defeat would be calamitous. So Australia will be under pressure. The Kiwis came back after a sizable defeat. The Aussies probably will, but they'll be working hard over the next four days, now they know what to expect.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:It'll be surprising if a side as good as Australia don't come back at Lord's.

If this set of XI individuals were from anywhere else but OZ, I think English people would be far less complementary about how good this team is. I mean you look at this Aussie line up, and its hard to see where the undying positive attitude about it comes from.

Rodgers was being talked about being dropped before the last test.
Michael Clarke has done very little now since really the end of 2013, and is battling injuries
Ryan Harris has gone
Adam Voges was dominated in the first test and is an old bloke with a lot to prove against test attacks
Shane Watson might have played his last game, his replace Marsh only averages 32 in FC cricket
Braddin has an appalling recent record
Starc seems like he wont play
Mitchell Johnson averages 42 in England, and this is his third test series here. Only really performed once in England on a nasty bowler friendly pitch
Lyon has come of the back of some ropey tours

There is question marks all over this team. Smith is the worlds best batter, Hazlewood looks a real player, but you could even say Warner was dominated early on in the innings yesterday and his career has cooled in recent times.

England should think Lords as an opportunity to put a mortal blow on this team, now they have arrived and you really focus on this Aussie team, I dont see where this supposed gap between the teams is. England also proved they have a decent attack, they bat long like Australia, Smith is counteracted by a bang on form Joe Root, and there is more useful experience in the top 6.

Australia have a real battle on their hands to stay in the series at Lords. Starc will be a huge blow if he doesnt play

If Starc is fit, I only really see a ? over Watson and Braddin. Rogers is the top scorer in recent Ashes encounters, and scored 100 runs in Cardiff. Lyon has done well. I suspect you could come up with another set of indicators which make Australia look a lot better.

England have a dodgy top four. By your own argument, Stokes shouldn't be playing. Moeen isn't definitively a Test spinner. Wood has it all to prove.

Maybe home advantage has been underestimated. Other factors too, which I don't want to repeat at the risk of irritating some posters.

It might end up being the battle of the baggage handlers:

Cook, Bell, Anderson and Broad v Clarke. Watson, Haddin and Johnson.

Wouldn't be surprised if Finn replaced Wood for this test, England have said they'll manage him and Finn will be at home.

I think Australia have to stop England winning this test, and given England's improving record at Lord's that might be tricky. If England go 2-0 up next weekend then I can see the Australian camp starting to fall apart, much like England did in 2013/14. Remember, they were big favourites as well going into that series.

Far too much praise of England and writing off of Australia for my book. There seems this horrible trend at present that every England win should be raised aloft as if proving the years of underperformance are the exception rather than the norm and vice verse for a single win. The talk of new England being the real deal on Crapinfo was particularly poor especially as it came from Kimber and Dobell who are two of the best current cricket journalists.

It would be foolish to assume too much on the basis of one match. However I think one or two things have been established with a reasonable degree of confidence .
1/ There isn't any enormous gap between the teams . Whether because England are getting better quicker than was generally thought , or because Australia were a little overrated coming in , it looks like being much more of a contest than a lot of people were suggesting a short time ago.
2/ Both sides have some issues to consider ; though Australia having lost the first round are more likely to take immediate action. Marsh for Watson seems almost certain ; though he seems to have more support among team selectors than Australian fans generally - so who knows ? Haddin will likely continue , despite looking suspiciously like a man undertaking One Tour Too Many at Cardiff : and he may yet surprise with a rebound - he's been written off before. Looks as if Starc will need a rest.
England will still be a little concerned over their top order ; Cook actually looked quite good before getting himself out in each innings with an apparent excess of early aggression ; but neither Lyth nor Ballance were totally convincing. Think they are there for the series , disasters apart ; but I'm not sure England supporters will feel particularly relaxed watching them bat - at least until one or both play a big innings. ( Ballance's first innings was full of character ; but there remains a nagging fear that he may not be able to repeat that effort on a quicker pitch. Hard to argue with the average though.)
3/ Australia are going to miss Harris.
4/ The England attack - whose ability to take 20 wickets was questioned before the game - have showed that they are collectively quite effective , when backed up by good catching. Taking all twenty inside 155 overs on what was certainly no minefield is quite an impressive performance.

Teams that win the first match of an Ashes series have a good overall success rate. But England will surely be aware the job is but one third done : I don't see many draws , barring a lot of bad weather ; and as Australia hold the urn they will likely have to win twice more to wrest it back.
At least the signs from this match are that they have the capacity to do so.

I think we might be in for a very interesting series.

Couple of further points :

Suspect Australia might be a little more circumspect against Moeen at Lord's. Attempting to go after him at Cardiff was predictable ; and made more necessary by the generally very tight lines bowled by the England pace men. ( Stokes appears to be really working on his control - couple of short spells very effective , which adds a useful extra dimension if he can continue to develop)
If they are prepared to wait more for the bad balls , it may slow the scoring rate a little , but perhaps render Moeen less effective , and put some pressure for wickets back on the pace bowlers. Will be interesting to see if there is any change in tactics.
Bell in the second innings really came back as if he'd never been away. When you see him play freely , after coming in to a somewhat tense position , it is hard to figure where the form goes to at other times... Seems to me to so much a matter of his confidence ; and I wonder how it is that a player of his experience should be so apparently fragile in that area ?
Without wishing to hex him , I do fancy he'll get a few runs again now.
Smith got in - twice. And got out twice , when apparently set. He won't do that too often , I think. And since he did get a good start , there is no real evidence to suggest the number three spot is not a good idea for him. But if the later bats fall away again , there might be some thought that it was nice to have him there at five to do a rescue job before he became basically too good to bat so low...

Those who have Lyon for their fantasy teams might be on a winner. He looks likely to have a bit of work to do , if the pitches are generally on the dry side ; and he may wear better than the fast bowlers. And he will take wickets.

Stokes seemed to be bowling a noticably lower pace to gain that control though. Not sure we want another mid 80s pacer in the side.

Making_Splinters wrote:Far too much praise of England and writing off of Australia for my book. There seems this horrible trend at present that every England win should be raised aloft as if proving the years of underperformance are the exception rather than the norm and vice verse for a single win. The talk of new England being the real deal on Crapinfo was particularly poor especially as it came from Kimber and Dobell who are two of the best current cricket journalists.

Is anyone really writing off Australia ? Think anyone who does is extremely bold if not foolish...

Haven't read Dobell et al yet ; but I think it is reasonable to salute the England performance - as much for the style of their play as the result.

Not sure the one needs to lead to the other ?

Making_Splinters wrote:Stokes seemed to be bowling a noticably lower pace to gain that control though. Not sure we want another mid 80s pacer in the side.

Tactics for the particular conditions and position though , was it not ? I'd imagine he would crank it up in other circumstances ; but on this occasion accuracy seemed to be more effective than raw pace .

We will get a better idea as the summer progresses I think. The matches won't all go like this one.

alfie wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:Stokes seemed to be bowling a noticably lower pace to gain that control though. Not sure we want another mid 80s pacer in the side.

Tactics for the particular conditions and position though , was it not ? I'd imagine he would crank it up in other circumstances ; but on this occasion accuracy seemed to be more effective than raw pace .

We will get a better idea as the summer progresses I think. The matches won't all go like this one.

His paced dropped after he got carted in an over in the first innings. We saw it in the West Indies as well, when he tries to bowl up at 90 his radar goes to pot.

It's remarkable how few wickets Stokes gets given the number of false shots he induces. A lot of potential catches go into empty spaces. I think it's twice he's taken wickets off no balls. His captain is reluctant to bowl him, but that would probably change if he started picking up more wickets.