Cricket

[kaosmark2]

we had to get a first innings lead and Finn et al aren't trusted not to concede a lot of runs.

We've got a 5-man attack, with Stokes being a fairly normal bowler who won't go for too much it should have been easier to take the gamble of Finn (or another). Wickets stop a team scoring. It's another conservative selection when - with chasing the series - we should have made the gamble.

David Saker:

"We assess selection all the time. We make mistakes, and we might have made a mistake in this game. We picked a side that we thought would get 20 wickets and that still could happen.

You can't win a match unless you take 20 wickets. The pitches here don't suit Anderson's swing, so you need to pick other bowlers who'll take wickets.

With the wind an issue, I can see a case for Bresnan, who will bowl a lot better than most of our others into it, but it didn't do a lot today.

Our bowling since the first innings in Brisbane has really shocked me. The batting has been much worse failures, but this Australian lineup isn't as good as their batting totals make them out to be. Warner, Clarke and Haddin are class, but is Steve Smith really a top test match player? Rogers? Bailey?

[Osama Jim Laden]

I don't think they wanted to play Bresnan but had their hands forced by how poor the other potential replacements have been in the warm up matches and Alice Springs. To have any chance of winning in Perth, we had to get a first innings lead and Finn et al aren't trusted not to concede a lot of runs.

We can moan about poor performances with the ball, but regardless you have to doff your cap to Haddin - so many runs for a No.7, and twice when coming in at a relative position of weakness for his team. Fair play...the convict bastard!

Always rated Haddin, gets some unfair stick IMO..

Somebody earlier mentioned Finn playing, I kinda agree too.. If he goes for runs, fine so long as he takes wickets.. He's quicker than the lads in at the mo'..

Of course it's a risk but the 'safe' options aren't cutting it are they..

Edited December 13, 2013 by Osama Jim Laden

[TheGayTent]

We've got a 5-man attack, with Stokes being a fairly normal bowler who won't go for too much it should have been easier to take the gamble of Finn (or another). Wickets stop a team scoring. It's another conservative selection when - with chasing the series - we should have made the gamble.

David Saker:

"We assess selection all the time. We make mistakes, and we might have made a mistake in this game. We picked a side that we thought would get 20 wickets and that still could happen.

You can't win a match unless you take 20 wickets. The pitches here don't suit Anderson's swing, so you need to pick other bowlers who'll take wickets.

With the wind an issue, I can see a case for Bresnan, who will bowl a lot better than most of our others into it, but it didn't do a lot today.

Our bowling since the first innings in Brisbane has really shocked me. The batting has been much worse failures, but this Australian lineup isn't as good as their batting totals make them out to be. Warner, Clarke and Haddin are class, but is Steve Smith really a top test match player? Rogers? Bailey?

I don't necessarily disagree with your point of view re bowling selection. However, what I would say is that bowlers often perform a lot better when the pressure is off. Were England 2-0 up, had batted first and put 400 on the board, I've no doubt the convicts would be 250 ao from the position of 140 odd for 5 with the same bowlers.

I.e. I don't think the personnel in the bowling line up is a major problem. Throw any of them into the mix at the moment and they'll be unlikely to make a huge difference. Not until the batsmen put their hands up and give the bowlers something to play with.

I'd also suggest, that the selectors having seen the back up bowlers at close quarters for the last 6 weeks are in a much better decision to decide in whom to put their trust in than we are.

Finn has suddenly become a better bowler by not playing simply because barring Broad our bowling attack hasn't looked dangerous.

Had Finn been picked and then had to be withdrawn from the attack because he'd gone at 4 an over, the selectors would be getting stick.

Let's get serious for a second, this is the problem:

Root 43.33

Bell 38.33

Carberry 28.50

Pietersen 25.25

Cook 20.50

Prior 18.25

Stokes 14.50

Trott 9.50

Just one player averaging over 40, and only two over 30. Horrible figures.

[Osama Jim Laden]

I don't necessarily disagree with your point of view re bowling selection. However, what I would say is that bowlers often perform a lot better when the pressure is off. Were England 2-0 up, had batted first and put 400 on the board, I've no doubt the convicts would be 250 ao from the position of 140 odd for 5 with the same bowlers.

I.e. I don't think the personnel in the bowling line up is a major problem. Throw any of them into the mix at the moment and they'll be unlikely to make a huge difference. Not until the batsmen put their hands up and give the bowlers something to play with.

I'd also suggest, that the selectors having seen the back up bowlers at close quarters for the last 6 weeks are in a much better decision to decide in whom to put their trust in than we are.

Finn has suddenly become a better bowler by not playing simply because barring Broad our bowling attack hasn't looked dangerous.

Had Finn been picked and then had to be withdrawn from the attack because he'd gone at 4 an over, the selectors would be getting stick.

Let's get serious for a second, this is the problem:

Root 43.33

Bell 38.33

Carberry 28.50

Pietersen 25.25

Cook 20.50

Prior 18.25

Stokes 14.50

Trott 9.50

Just one player averaging over 40, and only two over 30. Horrible figures.

You've made some good points man.. Yes, if out batsmen weren't struggling so much, the bowlers would indeed have less pressure on.. Maybe this would make a difference, you'd certainly think so..

The team as a whole is playing below par, and most, if not all of them know their position is pretty much guaranteed..

With Clarke, Warner & Watson, Aussies have players that'll happily smash four an over anyway..

That's another reason I think Finn should've been included..

He'll ruffle more feathers than the current lineup and if he goes for a few runs but DOES get the wickets, England are in a better position..

I just can't see these lot doing it at the moment..

Edited December 13, 2013 by Osama Jim Laden

[kaosmark2]

I don't necessarily disagree with your point of view re bowling selection. However, what I would say is that bowlers often perform a lot better when the pressure is off. Were England 2-0 up, had batted first and put 400 on the board, I've no doubt the convicts would be 250 ao from the position of 140 odd for 5 with the same bowlers.

I.e. I don't think the personnel in the bowling line up is a major problem. Throw any of them into the mix at the moment and they'll be unlikely to make a huge difference. Not until the batsmen put their hands up and give the bowlers something to play with.

I'd also suggest, that the selectors having seen the back up bowlers at close quarters for the last 6 weeks are in a much better decision to decide in whom to put their trust in than we are.

Finn has suddenly become a better bowler by not playing simply because barring Broad our bowling attack hasn't looked dangerous.

Had Finn been picked and then had to be withdrawn from the attack because he'd gone at 4 an over, the selectors would be getting stick.

Let's get serious for a second, this is the problem:

Root 43.33

Bell 38.33

Carberry 28.50

Pietersen 25.25

Cook 20.50

Prior 18.25

Stokes 14.50

Trott 9.50

Just one player averaging over 40, and only two over 30. Horrible figures.

I agree with pretty much all your points there. As I said, the batting has been much worse failures. I made the point earlier in the thread as well regarding previous innings that for all my criticism of Cook's defensive fields, Clarke has had the opportunity to place aggressive fields because he's had runs on the board, while Cook hasn't had that leeway to gamble. Catching fields help bowlers bowl better, because they feel more likely to get a wicket.

My main issue is that Bresnan isn't really a wicket-taking bowler and that's what we need when chasing the series. Considering the performance of all our seamers, he's certainly a reasonable selection on form, it's just I'm not sure he's what the situation demands. The whole England set-up is conservative and wary of risks and that's a huge problem when you're 2-0 down.

[TheGayTent]

I think England's hope was to actually win a toss then bat and put a decent score on the board.

Then they can use Bresnan into the wind, doing the donkey work, and keeping it tight. That would let Anderson off the leash to bowl aggressively and to attacking fields.

In recent years whenever one facet of England's game has been off, they've been able to cover it with another.

On this tour everything has been below par including the fielding and holding catches. Confidence, confidence, confidence.

[kaosmark2]

I think England's hope was to actually win a toss then bat and put a decent score on the board.

Then they can use Bresnan into the wind, doing the donkey work, and keeping it tight. That would let Anderson off the leash to bowl aggressively and to attacking fields.

In recent years whenever one facet of England's game has been off, they've been able to cover it with another.

On this tour everything has been below par including the fielding and holding catches. Confidence, confidence, confidence.

I think that's been a big problem this series - a large degree of the gameplan has revolved around winning the toss.

I'm pleased with today's fielding. Anderson's run-out was spectacular, but it was certainly good the whole morning session.

[kaosmark2]

I can't believe the ICC team of the year? Cook? Not doubting his quality overall and I'm sure it's a blip in form, but he's been awful in 2013.

[TheGayTent]

I can't believe the ICC team of the year? Cook? Not doubting his quality overall and I'm sure it's a blip in form, but he's been awful in 2013.

I'm not sure when their year runs from and to, but if it's calendar year, then yes very surprising. Although he's been a winning Ashes captain, his batting has been poor by his own standards. I'd guess he averages considerably less than 40, so by that alone, he shouldn't make the list.

[TheGayTent]

Everyones an arm chair expert aren't they

I shouldn't be surprised you can't tell the difference between considered opinion clearly given as opinion, with inane running commentary and lazy opinion masquerading as fact

[lharris92]

disappointed, but not surprised the way the series has gone so far.

why not give another bowler a chance instead of bresnan. makes you wonder how they will get into the team unless there's a few injuries

[TheGayTent]

why not give another bowler a chance instead of bresnan. makes you wonder how they will get into the team unless there's a few injuries

In his last test against the Australians Finn's figures were:

25-2-117-2

I'd suggest those figures aren't helping his cause. Plus he was dire against the Cricket Australia team at Alice Springs failing to even pick up a wicket. Rankin has been little better in the warm up matches too - and only picked up one wicket in the same game.

Tremlett has already played in this series and not been any better than the current bowling unit.

The best way to get into the side is to be playing so well you can't be left out. That just isn't the case at the moment - the better question is to ask if the bowling unit aren't particularly performing at the moment, how bad must the replacements be if they cannot force themselves into the side...?

Besides, the real problem as I may have mentioned already, is the reliability of England's top order...

[TheGayTent]

Well thanks for popping by and offering sweet FA... On ya bike now...

[Osama Jim Laden]

Excellent

[kaosmark2]

In his last test against the Australians Finn's figures were:

25-2-117-2

I'd suggest those figures aren't helping his cause. Plus he was dire against the Cricket Australia team at Alice Springs failing to even pick up a wicket. Rankin has been little better in the warm up matches too - and only picked up one wicket in the same game.

Tremlett has already played in this series and not been any better than the current bowling unit.

The best way to get into the side is to be playing so well you can't be left out. That just isn't the case at the moment - the better question is to ask if the bowling unit aren't particularly performing at the moment, how bad must the replacements be if they cannot force themselves into the side...?

Besides, the real problem as I may have mentioned already, is the reliability of England's top order...

Yeah. I don't think Finn is the solution to all England's problems. I've been calling heavily for him because for all his problems, he has a knack of taking wickets. I don't think he is England's 3rd best seamer, I think that's Bresnan or Onions, maybe Tremlett if he can find his form, but I think the situation and the pitch called for Finn, hence my issue with the selection.

I think there is an issue in the England team in that they're quick to drop new players and slow to drop established players. I like that they persist with people, I don't want to go back to the 90s where players came in for one test then got dropped, but I think they give a fraction too much leeway to the experienced players and too little to the newbies. I'm a big fan of James Taylor myself, and I think he should have got much more of a chance than he has so far. I don't believe Trott would have been dropped if it weren't for the issues he was going to, when had he been in that form without them, he would have warranted leaving out (this isn't to dismiss the problems, or say he shouldn't be brought back in if everyone feels it's appropriate).

But ultimately, the problem is in our batting. We haven't passed 400 in 20 innings, which is a disgrace. Any problems with our bowlers are secondary to that. I want to know what Graham Gooch has done to keep his job, as this has been an issue that has been building for nearly 3 years in terms of players throwing their wickets away and batsmen not building on starts. Even if you exclude KP because of his erratic nature, Cook, Trott, Root, Bell, Compton, Bairstow and Strauss have struggled with that since the last home series against India. I put Prior's poor batting form as an aberration - he tends to either get a duck or 40+ and lately it's fallen as ducks and other singles figure scores.

[lharris92]

either way, 4 wickets are needed within the first hour to limit the aussies score and so they don't tire themselves out before batting.

needs to happen otherwise could be the test on the brink again

[kaosmark2]

either way, 4 wickets are needed within the first hour to limit the aussies score and so they don't tire themselves out before batting.

needs to happen otherwise could be the test on the brink again

Either way we need to remind ourselves how to bat.

[kaosmark2]

Yay!

Edit: Yays!

Edit 2 for lharris: Yayss!

Edited December 14, 2013 by kaosmark2

[lharris92]

next edit = yayss! ?

and yes i agree we need to bat properly

[atomised]

Need to finish them off now, then hopefully we'll turn up to bat

[kaosmark2]

next edit = yayss! ?

and yes i agree we need to bat properly

Obviously

A Cook century and Carberry 50 before I go to sleep would be nice.

[Osama Jim Laden]

Well played AC.. Didn't ever look particularly comfortable but got those runs on the board & that'll stand him in good stead for the rest of the series.... Hopefully..

With regards to the review system, should be gone altogether in my opinion.. Cricket is heading down a horrible road that's ruining football..

[kaosmark2]

I'm perfectly fine with a review system in cricket as long as it's good enough that the umpires trust it. It's a completely different game from football and the stop-start nature of cricket means a review system doesn't disrupt it. The problem is that it's not reliable enough/trusted enough for the umpires to go by what it shows.

[kaosmark2]

Follow-on avoided

[TheGayTent]

So, 6 wickets down before 200 is on the board, again. With only one of the top order managing 50.

McGrath, Lee, Warne et al would struggle to defend the scores England's batsmen are giving their bowlers.