3rd Test: Australia v England at The WACA, Perth, 13-17 Dec

[angryangy]

I'm sorry, you're watching a completely different Ashes series then. Johnson, is a match winner. But, that term is very misused sometimes. The difference between Australia and England has been as vast as an ocean.

1) Warner at the top has been churning out runs and he's been doing it at a rapid pace. England's best attacking batsmen has been getting himself out.

2) Australia's support bowlers are doing a remarkable job. Harris and Siddle in particular are very under-rated and do an amazing holding/attacking job.

3) I never thought a day would come where Lyon would out bowl Swann. He's done that two tests running.

4) Haddin has been far superior to Prior in all departments. Keeping, batting and as a vice captain.

5) England's fielding has been dismal if I were to be mild. Australia haven't dropped a catch.

Lastly, and I give a lot of importance to this : While England have been chopping and changing like no one's business since the last Ashes series, Australia have tried to form a nucleus and assign roles to each individual. There's a lot of talk about balance of sides and the turf that they play on and conditions, but while all that is important the most important this is to do well with whoever you have. England have simply had too many cooks spoiling the broth in various positions. Those that are steady and stable in the side, look tired and worn out.

You could maybe argue that Australia's batting is proportional to England's lack of Johnson, but the contribution of Lyon, particularly in the first Test, and the massive gulf in fielding execution are definitely of note.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

You could maybe argue that Australia's batting is proportional to England's lack of Johnson, but the contribution of Lyon, particularly in the first Test, and the massive gulf in fielding execution are definitely of note.

What about the fielding? Harris and Siddle have done a fine job. England's spearhead has been Broad, not Anderson who's one of the finest test bowlers today. England's third paceman/spinner also have been mediocre, if you want to be generous with words.

 

[barmyarmy]

I've seen this test already. We lose.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I think england are boned. 326/6 is not an awful score, but it's over what a 5 man attack can afford to give away.

 

[Skater]

Gutted when I woke up this morning (having overslept) to see THAT score. Why won't the damn coin let us bat first?

Letting a very average player in Smith get a hundred and poor old Bresnan being smacked around leaves me thinking unless they make very light work of the tail tomorrow that this is all over and it's bye bye Ashes.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Gutted when I woke up this morning (having overslept) to see THAT score. Why won't the damn coin let us bat first?

Letting a very average player in Smith get a hundred and poor old Bresnan being smacked around leaves me thinking unless they make very light work of the tail tomorrow that this is all over and it's bye bye Ashes.

If an average player has got a test ton at one of the most difficult venues to bat at, with a battery of four quicks and the world's best spinner all be it out of form then it shudders me to think how 'average' the England attack must be?

This is Steve Smith's greatest innings so far and his highest feat as a cricketer. It's something he's worked his whole life for and it was a hell of an innings. I've not seen someone play the pull shot with that much conviction since Ponting left.

You could respect his achievement, or belittle it by labelling him as 'average.' He may be not the most aesthetic batsman, but to score a ton in the situation that he did it in, on the track that he batted on and against the opposition that he got them against is nothing short of remarkable.

 

[Owzat]

I think england are boned. 326/6 is not an awful score, but it's over what a 5 man attack can afford to give away.

Five bowlers are ideal for toiling away over 100+ overs at which point you're conceding 300+ so what is the point? In my book you only need four bowlers, if they don't bowl a side out relatively cheaply then you aren't going to win in which case part-timers and an extra batsman are order of the day.

If England were playing two spinners I could kinda understand it, if Stokes were a proven batsman at this level I could kinda understand it, but all England are doing is token and pointless changes. England don't look like bowling the aussies out cheaply even if we included 11 bowlers

If that's three tosses in the row England have lost then is Cook a useless tosser.................?

 

[barmyarmy]

Four if you include the Oval.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Cook's upbringing means he is unfamiliar with handling small change.

----------

Five bowlers are ideal for toiling away over 100+ overs at which point you're conceding 300+ so what is the point? In my book you only need four bowlers, if they don't bowl a side out relatively cheaply then you aren't going to win in which case part-timers and an extra batsman are order of the day.

totally agree, I think 5 bowlers is always, always, always, a rubbish decision. it's nice if you have a guy that can do a little more than just turn his arm over to change things up but playing someone that's steadfastly rubbish at batting for their bowling is suicide.

 

[Lebanna]

The only genuinely rubbish batsman in England's team for this match is Anderson. Stokes is unproven at test level, although his FC average isn't great. Still an average of around 30 is better than nothing and while it might not be as good as Balance's FC average of ~50, his bowling is significantly better.

I get your point that unless you bowl a team out you are going to need the extra batsman. But equally if you are struggling to bowl a team out, then having an extra bowler can help shoulder the burden.

 

[Umair7]

@Kushal world best spinner ?? O.o

 

[used2bcool]

To think that this Australian score could've been a lot more daunting. I watched the first five wickets fall and not one of them was what you would call a real bowler's wicket. Rogers tried a single he had no reason to risk; Watson, Bailey, and Warner all played terrible shots; and Clarke perished going for an unnecessarily aggressive shot.

I'm not saying England bowled poorly, but Australia could be in a far better position.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

England bowled ok for the first session and a half but there were some poor shots.

Bailey's dismissal might have encouraged them to persist bowling short of a length though, and once Smith and Haddin were set it was very costly. Just like the previous two tests, when a partnership got established England just never looked like breaking through.

I really wonder whether Finn might have made a difference. With hindsight he should have played for Tremlett in the first test. Although maybe if he'd played and bowled a load of rubbish hindsight would say Tremlett should have played.

 

[used2bcool]

I really wonder whether Finn might have made a difference. With hindsight he should have played for Tremlett in the first test. Although maybe if he'd played and bowled a load of rubbish hindsight would say Tremlett should have played.

I'd like to think Finn would've helped, in fact I thought he'd get a game in Perth. I figured England would replace Stokes with Bresnan and bring in Finn for Monty. Instead they've essentially decided that Bresnan can play as a lead bowler, a decision I'm not sure is entirely vindicated by his performance or his record.

 

[War]

Not sure if Johnson can perform that well under pressure. If Australia gets bowled out for a low score and England start well, it gets to him quickly if he is losing.

As i said that is the "hope" that he won't still handle pressure. No one can say for certain that he wont do the opposite and maintain his potential new found bowling control.

----------

Cook's upbringing means he is unfamiliar with handling small change.

----------



totally agree, I think 5 bowlers is always, always, always, a rubbish decision. it's nice if you have a guy that can do a little more than just turn his arm over to change things up but playing someone that's steadfastly rubbish at batting for their bowling is suicide.

Any team that has can find a quality all-rounder will always try to accommodate him so as to have a 5-man attack. Because not many teams have "4 bowlers" of the quality of the world-class quality McGrath/Gillespie/Warne/Lee, Windies 4 prong pace attack. In many 4 man attacks you may have 2 of those bowlers being excellent & the other being just solid enough as "role" bowlers.

Even S Africa right now with their current 4 very good main bowlers in Steyn/Philander/M Morkel/Tahir - still are keen to utilize Kallis despite his age as a 5th bowler.

England lets not kid ourselves have wanted a all-rounder since Flintoff left, they just never found one since 2009 & thus settled on the simple 4-man attack. However Stokes is the real potential all-rounder, just like how N Zealand are finding out with Corey Anderson & AUS with Watson (although Watto is not living up to his obvious potential with the bat in tests) If you compare Stokes now to Flintoff on his debut in 1998, you would find that Stokes is a far more complete player even.

So i personally wouldn't mind if ENG give are willing to now invest in Stokes as all-rounder for tests. Anderson & Swann wont carry the attack forever also, so realistically how ENG balance their side will have to be addressed soon.