FINALLY England are showing some fight, too little too late and still way too many wickets tossed away, but resolve means we could actually contest the rest of the Ashes now we've pretty much gift wrapped them and handed them as an early xmas pressie to the aussies.
Still not convinced by Carberry, doesn't look technically sound to me and even his 1st innings 60 was not without luck and the aussies dropped far too much short and asking to be hit. His dismissal was dismal, some will say unlucky but to pick out the only fielder (1st inns) was poor
On a pitch where their keeper made a hundred, none of our batsmen have passed 87. I also heard Stokes who made a half-decent 28 had not previously faced more than 64 (?) balls in the 4th innings of a match, hardly what you need to hear about your choice of #6.
Will 29 runs @ 14.50 and 2 wkts @ 45.00 be considered good signs or maybe the fact that England needed more runs and are run by more ons who selected a debutant instead of something with a bit of experience and run scoring ability? Nothing against Stokes, but I don't think more bowling and not a solid batsman was what was called for here.
Bairstow may not be everyone's 1st choice but a 60 or 70 in support of Bell could have got us up to 300-350 instead of 172 and forced the aussies to at least bat a session or two longer and leave England to bat 4-5 sessions instead of the full six.
I fear this 'fight' England have put up will be short lived, while some may not agree when I highlight the fact that there's nothing at stake now, there isn't. The aussies know it is only a matter of time before they win, the pressure off England because they've been written off. That may work in England's favour for the next Test, but the heat of the battle will be cranked right back up again and every run contested hard
and thanks for playing Stokes 
