Cricket

[TheGayTent]

I think Taylor's better than Bairstow, though I like consistency and players to get a fair crack of the whip. For that reason I'd stick with Bairstow and only play Taylor if KP is unfit.

Panesar has a very good record at OT, and I too would like to see two spinners. However, given Root's form with the ball I think England will rely on just Swann as their one specialist spinner.

Tremlett is my preferred option as 3rd quick as I've mentioned on here quite a few times. Can't see him playing mind.

[TheGayTent]

Weather all over the place up here. Aussies might have chance of drawing one

There's a surprise.

[kaosmark2]

I think Taylor's better than Bairstow, though I like consistency and players to get a fair crack of the whip. For that reason I'd stick with Bairstow and only play Taylor if KP is unfit.

Panesar has a very good record at OT, and I too would like to see two spinners. However, given Root's form with the ball I think England will rely on just Swann as their one specialist spinner.

Tremlett is my preferred option as 3rd quick as I've mentioned on here quite a few times. Can't see him playing mind.

Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with sticking with Bairstow for that reason. He's done OK against NZ and Aus so far, certainly not badly enough to warrant being dropped, it's more that I want to see Taylor get another chance soon.

Yeah, Root's doing well enough with the ball that we don't really need a 2nd spinner, even more the case if KP's fit, but it'd be nice to see if only to show flexibility from the selectors.

I suspect Tremlett's got a slight chance for 4th or 5th tests considering Finn's probably out of the picture for a while again, but considering Bresnan got key wickets and a handful of runs I can't see them leaving him out for OT. Bres is definitely a good bowler, but he'd probably be my 6th choice seamer considering all the options we have.

[TheGayTent]

The way it's been going though, we could have two days washed out and still have time to beat them by an innings and some.

Slight exaggeration

[Ed209]

Yup. How quickly people forget we won the first test by 15 runs

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Yup. How quickly people forget we won the first test by 15 runs

Or how they were 117 for 9 in the first (Then Agar came in...)

First test flattered to deceive as far as the Aussies are concerned. IMO - second test was more of a measure of the difference in the 2 sides.

Scruff is being a leetle optimistic however.

[kaosmark2]

England still haven't posted a 400+ total in a Test this summer. Our batting isn't as bad as the Aussies but definitely needs improving. I'd be very surprised if we win more than one of the 10 Tests by an innings.

[Ed209]

Or how they were 117 for 9 in the first (Then Agar came in...)

First test flattered to deceive as far as the Aussies are concerned. IMO - second test was more of a measure of the difference in the 2 sides.

Scruff is being a leetle optimistic however.

Yeah, they were 117-9. So what? A team's not out until you've got your 10 wickets.

Truth is, if Broad had been given out, we might well have lost that test match and no one could have said the Aussie's didn't deserve it.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Ed209

[pink_triangle]

Yeah, they were 117-9. So what? A team's not out until you've got your 10 wickets.

Truth is, if Broad had been given out, we might well have lost that test match and no one could have said the Aussie's didn't deserve it.

Thats true but freak innings are unlikely to be repeated regularly in the future. Its when batsmen are in form that you get more concerned as they can go on a run. Easy to say what could have happened if broad had been given out, but that was australias fault for poor use of the DRS and we cant forget that we had just as many decisions go against us in that test as they did.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

That is a bit misleading seeing as we actually declared one of our biggest innings...

Still a niggling concern about the top order though..

[Ed209]

Yeah but at the same time anyone who knows even the smallest amount about cricket can notice a bit of freak situation when they see one.

Agar was obviously a freak situation. Aleem Dar being the only person in the world not to have realised Broad hit it is also a freak situation. The Aussies gave us a really good fight in the first match. It would be foolish to dismiss that based on their Lords performance.

[TheGayTent]

Australia thrashed England by more than 250 runs in the 2011/12 Ashes.

One big win in this series like Lords doesn't necessarily mean the remaining 3 will matches will be big wins either.

[kushy26]

Hi nice to see this thread.I too love cricket and a newbie here.Hi all one again.

[kaosmark2]

That is a bit misleading seeing as we actually declared one of our biggest innings...

Not really. Mostly conditions have looked like they could favour the bat, mostly Cook has won the toss and chosen to bat first. If you win the toss and choose to bat first in good batting conditions you should be getting first innings totals of 400-500, not 250-350. Yes England could have reached 400 in their last innings, but getting a big score in a 3rd innings after not enforcing a follow-on isn't anywhere near as impressive as posting one before that. You can't talk about getting victories by an innings unless you're posting 500+ in the first innings, let alone failing to make 400.

Our batsmen have done a job that has been good enough, because our bowling attack is exceptional, but they're all flickering in and out of form. It's not misleading to say they haven't looked good enough as a unit to post a truly dominating and imposing score, because they haven't.

[TheGayTent]

What's disappointing is both sides are poorer, or perhaps more accurately currently playing poorer, than both their 2010/11 equivalents.

[kaosmark2]

Well the Aussies' batting lineup is definitely worse than it was back then. I think we're just playing worse rather than actually are. But yeah, it'd be nice if the quality of cricket were better.

[TheGayTent]

As an England supporter I'm not over the moon, but for the good of the series, I am pleased Australia have won a toss for the first time this Ashes.

Now we will see how bad or not the convicts really are.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

As an England supporter I'm not over the moon, but for the good of the series, I am pleased Australia have won a toss for the first time this Ashes.

Now we will see how bad or not the convicts really are.

Yeah - agree with that. Big score here could make it interesting. Prediction for what its worth (which is f all): England by 4W - over 5 days

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Not a great start for the technology again. Anybody watching it (listening to TMS myself)?

[lharris92]

yep, another shocker for the review system. nothing on snicko, and he clips his pads with the bat.

umpires with another shocker.

[TheGayTent]

Am not a fan of technology at all, but in this case it's the umpires at fault not the technology.

[lharris92]

oh i agree. umpires need to learn to use it properly or just don't use it at all

[TheGayTent]

Reminds me of the discussion we had during the last test regarding reinstating one home umpire per test, as the best umpires right now are all Australian or English.

[TheGayTent]

12 umpires on the elite list:

England - Richard Illingworth, Ian Gould, Richard Kettleborough, Nigel Llong

Australia - Bruce Oxenford, Steve Davis, Rod Tucker, Paul Reiffel

Pakistan - Aleem Dar

New Zealand - Tony Hill

South Africa - Marais Erasmus

Sri Lanka - Kumar Dharmasena.

So only 4 of the 12 best umpires in the world can officiate an Ashes test match.

[lharris92]

yeah, although seem to remember them saying they could call up some of the other international ones such as billy bowden. stupidity really as he was dropped from the panel. think a system of a home + away + other umpire is better though