2nd Test: Australia v England at The Adelaide Oval, Adelaide, 5-9 Dec

[MUFC1987]

Smith just got stuck on the crease. Didn't go forward or back. Someone like Clarke won't get out like that, because he'll come forward to smother the spin, or go back if it's short enough. Smith just poked from where he was too and missed it. Lack of technique.

 

[Owzat]

Well England went with Stokes, a fifth bowler that didn't bowl enough to justify inclusion but "options" is what options does and it leaves England with three (relatively) inexperienced batsmen in the top six in Carberry, Root and Stokes, plus an out of form Prior at seven.

If the batting doesn't make it to 250 questions will be asked about what the fifth bowler brought to the attack, so far 26 free runs to Australia albeit for theoretical extra rest for other bowlers but is eight overs that significant from normal rotation? And could Root or indeed KP or Carberry not have bowled if they were going with two spinners?!?!?

I think England needed to make a bit more of inroads, decided on two spinners then lose the toss and missing a couple of chances albeit I don't think Bailey made most of his 'extra life'

----------

Ha damn, technically such a 5-bowler balance is probably ideal @ Adelaide. But i didn't think Flower & selectors would be brave enough to pick Stokes, given Prior's iffy form & the general indifferent batting form of the top 7, in 2013.

This is the boldest selection ENG have done in a while, so i applaud them for that. But they need certain players to step up or else it could blow up in their faces.

While clich?s in cricket are not uncommon, like "catches win matches" and "you need to take 20 wickets" etc, the only wholly true one is that you don't win a Test by scoring less runs than your opponent (used to be true of limited overs until worthless duck method)

Your bowlers need runs to defend, if your four best bowlers can't bowl a side out what makes anyone think the fifth will? Usually if you skittle a side cheaply you have three bowlers taking the wickets, if you bowl them out for a low-decent total then you use four with maybe a fifth (part-time or otherwise) taking a wicket or clutch, but generally it doesn't add much and is almost preparing to bowl a lot of overs and if you are going to bowl 80+ overs why bother including someone just to concede runs?!?!?

And it could be counterproductive, gets Stokes off to a wicketless or difficult time as he's not being used as a front three bowler thus damaging his confidence and putting pressure on his batting. Better to bring someone in just to bat, save the five bowler theory for home series or whipping boys

 

[barmyarmy]

Oh Carbs...

Decent day but should have been better. Two spinners clearly the right selection.

 

[karolkarol]

Tymal Mills is quick in the same way that Devon Malcolm was quick ie it's generally fast, short and going anywhere!

 

[War]

While clich?s in cricket are not uncommon, like "catches win matches" and "you need to take 20 wickets" etc, the only wholly true one is that you don't win a Test by scoring less runs than your opponent (used to be true of limited overs until worthless duck method)

Your bowlers need runs to defend, if your four best bowlers can't bowl a side out what makes anyone think the fifth will? Usually if you skittle a side cheaply you have three bowlers taking the wickets, if you bowl them out for a low-decent total then you use four with maybe a fifth (part-time or otherwise) taking a wicket or clutch, but generally it doesn't add much and is almost preparing to bowl a lot of overs and if you are going to bowl 80+ overs why bother including someone just to concede runs?!?!?

And it could be counterproductive, gets Stokes off to a wicketless or difficult time as he's not being used as a front three bowler thus damaging his confidence and putting pressure on his batting. Better to bring someone in just to bat, save the five bowler theory for home series or whipping boys

Ye i don't disagree with you, although if there is any pitch in world, based on cricket history that you would want to play 5 bowlers - its Adelaide.

Plus ENG have been seeking that Flintoff replacement to get back that 5 bowler balance consistently once upon a time. Stokes looks the real deal, so they have taken the chance to play him now.

But of course his effectiveness largely depends on others around him performing in this test for reasons already stated.

 

[used2bcool]

Ye i don't disagree with you, although if there is any pitch in world, based on cricket history that you would want to play 5 bowlers - its Adelaide.

It's not the same mountains-of-runs Adelaide, though, is it? This is the kind of pitch that Andy Flower has wet dreams about. It doesn't seem to have the troubling pace or bounce of the Gabba and looks like it will deteriorate, probably taking spin as it goes. I think England made the correct decision playing two spinners. I don't know much about Stokes, but I was very surprised to see no Bresnan. I thought he was fit?

 

[barmyarmy]

Adelaide and Perth are back-to-back hence no Bres on the Adelaide road. Stokes can reverse it which is handy on a dry wicket.

 

[War]

It's not the same mountains-of-runs Adelaide, though, is it? This is the kind of pitch that Andy Flower has wet dreams about. It doesn't seem to have the troubling pace or bounce of the Gabba and looks like it will deteriorate, probably taking spin as it goes. I think England made the correct decision playing two spinners. I don't know much about Stokes, but I was very surprised to see no Bresnan. I thought he was fit?

Bresnan probably was fit by all reports and most of the media thought he would play. But i'm glad he didn't play, since it would have fallen into the belief that ENG are a defensive team.

Playing Panesar & especially Stokes is a refreshingly bold selection.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

Adelaide and Perth are back-to-back hence no Bres on the Adelaide road. Stokes can reverse it which is handy on a dry wicket.

this. especially with regards to bresnan.

Also selection isn't quite as simplistic as giving the best chance to win this test match, it has to be with a view of the best chance to win the 5 test match series, on the whole they will correlate strongly but sometimes there will be some small differences.

if we went with 4 bowling options, 2 seam, 2 spin and it went badly it we'd really struggle in the 3rd test and beyond. there were many paths selection for this test could have taken, all of which had an unkown element and none of which were stand-out candidates head and shoulders above the others, so in this spot i think it's fine to take context of the series and tour into account in selection.

 

[barmyarmy]

Playing Panesar & especially Stokes is a refreshingly bold selection.

As was Kerrigan and Woakes in some ways and look how well that went...

 

[War]

As was Kerrigan and Woakes in some ways and look how well that went...

Not to me, Kerrigan was a strange selection, even though Panesar was having his problems domestically & i never thought Woakes based on his ODI efforts was ever good enough to play tests as an all-rounder

I just saw that as ENG having already won the Ashes, just getting a rare opportunity in a dead rubber test to test our some fringe players.

 

[Skater]

As was Kerrigan and Woakes in some ways and look how well that went...

I can forgive them that as it was a dead rubber, and in the past England have been known to throw in some surprise selections for the last Test of the summer. Many are never heard from again.

But this is all the more surprising because we are 1-0 down in a massive series and we are being unusually bold in picking a debutant and a second spinner.

I guess what you're saying is Bresnan will most likely play in Perth.

 

[barmyarmy]

I would expect so. Depending on how Stokes plays Ballance may come in too.

 

[SpitfiresKent]

Need to get rid of Haddin very quickly this morning as we all know how quick he can score and take the game away from us.

 

[barmyarmy]

Not to mention Clarke and Johnson.